Talk:Baby Got Back

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RonaldTomlinson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RonaldTomlinson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

David Ford Lawsuit

The credit "Track created by Dave Ford" seems, at a minimum, to not be a neutral wording. David Ford, as DJ Punish, is known to have performed on the song both in crafting the beat and the scratches, but this was clearly added it response to a lawsuit Ford filed which has subsequently been thrown out of court. Maybe there is cause to detail the attribution controversy, but this wording accepts a claim without scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.92.171.237 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan coulton Cover Reference

since the article is locked, here is the link for the missing Reference to the Jonathan coulton cover: http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2005/10/14/thing-a-week-5-baby-got-back/ cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.143.175 (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Older comments

Sometimes, on music downloading services (e.g. Kazaa, Limewire) Baby Got Back can sometimes be listed as "I Like Big Butts" should we make a redirect for this with that name? --SuperDude 20:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have also noticed that the song was attributed on the internet as well as P2P software such as LimeWire to MC Hammer, as "I Like Big Butts (And I Cannot Lie)". Can someone please clarify this issue, and maybe even put a section in the article? --Ampersand2006 ^{( & )} 01:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

controversy

this song caused outrage among fitness groups for the lyrics "You can do side bends and sit ups, but please don't lose that butt." They were outraged that Sir Mixalot promoted the myth of 'spot elimination', that you can excercise a certain area of your body and just reduce the fat there and no where else. this should be reflected in the article 71.193.60.189

I don't think that his was his intention, he didn't promote it. The main message of the song was to speak out for big butt lovers everywhere. -Reapermage1990. 00:31 GMT 16th November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

chubby chasers?

This song is not about the "trend" of "chubby chasing," it is an expression of an urban or "black" preference for women with larger butts, as well as a rejection of the unhealthy but popular "waif" look. To say that it is part of a trend of "chubby chasing" demeans the song's cultural meaning (yes, it is a funny song, but is more than just a joke) and negates the cultural paradigm from which the song comes. Unless anyone can really refute this, I'll change the article within a few weeks....Reggaedelgado 02:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Whilst it does focus on the preference of larger female posteriors in african-american culture, it is popular amongst FAs as well. Perhaps that should be pointed out in the article. -Reapermage, 00:37 GMT 16/11/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reapermage1990 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My recent edit.

I have added some headers to the article to make it easy to read. Also could someone source this statement:

Sometimes in censored versions, "butts" is also replaced by "bucks".

It seems possible, but I think it would be better with a source. Also, this article could use info on what the controversy was over this song. It's been so long I don't remember. Google and ProQuest aren't really helpful here. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

David spade and Sandler

that's not by them this was a download on most likely limewire. People attributed it to Spade and sandler so more people would download it.

Parodies Section

There is also a Harry Potter parody titled "Sirius Black" which covers the events in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
What about this? This needs to be fleshed out, as the next reader will have no idea whether this is related to Baby got Back or not. Kareeser|^Talk! 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Baby got book" should be mentioned as a paraody too, but I'm not sure if the source site meets the standards for a source. http://www.whiteboydj.com --70.252.4.113 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sirius Black is an actual parody by Tony Goldmark. You can find it (or a sample of it, im not sure) here. The lyrics are a bit like this:

So Ron?/Yeah?/Ron?/Yeah?/Who's the world's most wanted wizard?/Dunno!/That prisoner!/ Prisoner!/Prisoner!/Prisoner!/Who escaped from Askaban!/Sirius Black!

Instead of "So Ladies/Ladies/..." and so on.Leemorrison 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

So far no-one has mentioned this translation : http://quislibet.livejournal.com/164084.html At last my Latin is useful ! 98.30.29.58 (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

---

What does brandon urie have to do with this song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.120.223 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fat Princess (PS3) Credits

This song plays during the credits of the newly released PlayStation Newtwork game Fat Princess with a substitute for the woman that speak during the song with quotes from the Princesses. I saw the SpongeBob thing was there, so I guess this should get some type of mention.mcnichoj (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.167.114 (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

just wanted to say....

that this article is perfect in every way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.143.193 (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this so hardcore. It needs to be locked JUST LIKE THIS. Allie (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if Wikipedia is losing it's already tenous grasp on reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.150.88 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion about a similar synopsis over at Regulate (song).--Banana (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia... Ever. Lock it, and make it a featured article.

Damn. Someone beat me to this comment. 198.82.31.252 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.168.59 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the article is accurate and serious tone when talking about this song is hilarious!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.135.159 (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis

There appears to be some dissent as to the encyclopedic nature of this article's Synopsis. Please discuss here prior to making significant edits to this section. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's putting it mildly. There is no encyclopedic content in that synopsis, and it's gone. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis is an accurate summary of the lyrics of the song. What reason(s) or rationale can you supply to support your belief the content is not encyclopedic ? Simply stating that it is not encyclopedic or, as in your edit summary "You gotta be kidding", is really not sufficient reason. Please refrain from removing sections of an article prior to discussion. The synopsis seems, to me, to accurately reflect the lyrics and I see no difference between this and other synopses of many film and song related articles. I am making my last allowed revert in this 24 hour period and again call for a discussion to avert an edit war. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You know where the discussion is: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Regulate_.28song.29. Calling this an accurate summary is in itself an attempt at humor, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a process by which Wikipedia edits are resolved and that process begins with discussions on the Talk page of the article in question. No serious previous discussion of the Synopsis section of this article has been held here other than the inane "Woo Hoo". I am only asking that we discuss the merits of the encyclopedic nature of the Synopsis on the Talk page. You find that an attempt at humor? Further, the discussion above you point to is for another article. Besides, why hide a discussion of the merits of a section somewhere nobody knows to look when there is a "Discussion" tab on the article itself? Anyway, back to the merits of the disputed section. It is an accurate synopsis, written well, without use of offending or extraneous or POV or any other qualities which might disqualify it as encyclopedic. Thus far nobody has actually raised an actual reason the section is non-encyclopedic other than basically "because I say so" or "because it's funny". Please provide some reason why this section should be removed. Otherwise, I will continue to support it's inclusion. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a lame attempt at humor, that's why. There are no merits. It is not well-written. It is not verified. It is stupid. Oh, it's not funny. It is not wikified. It is not encyclopedic in tone and content. See WP:TONE, for starters. And that discussion, as you well know, is not for another article--it is for articles that use crap formal language to discussing drinking and big butts. Now, can we get back to work? Drmies (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the incident report above, editors who re-add or create these silly synopses (the "verbose meme") will be given one final warning and then blocked for subsequent additions/re-additions. I'm not going to engage in a debate with someone pretending to not be in on the joke; it's a waste of time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When did WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and "I think it's silly" become a reason to give a single warning and/or block a user? It is apparent that the section was designed (at least partly) to be amusing, but I encountered this synopsis a while ago, and other than being mildly amused, saw no inaccuracy in it. It could certainly do with additional citation, and the tone needs to be improved, but rather than edit warring to remove an accurate but poorly-worded section, it should be discussed here and a more sensible alternative posed. Whether entirely serious or not, this is not vandalism per WP:VAND, and treating it as such and asserting that it will be reverted without discussion and the user(s) blocked, is completely in violation of WP:EW. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that I just issued Doctorfree with a 3RR warning, which is rather more appropriate that a "final warning" for something the user had not previously been warned about. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are issued per the fact that it's clearly original research and disruptive, not for the reasons you cite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, jumping directly to a final warning with little discussion and no previous warnings to the user is completely disregarding WP:AGF, especially as you seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with your argument is demonstrating bad faith ("editors who re-add or create these silly synopses (the "verbose meme") will be given one final warning"): that's simply WP:BITEy and not at all very WP:AGF. By all means start with a level 2 warning if it's apparently just an attempt at humour; in fact, even starting at level 3 (assume bad faith) is better than issuing a final warning, which is meant to be reserved for extreme personal attacks or BLP violations, or violations of a similar nature. In addition, by assuming that it is being reinserted as humour, you're not accounting for the fact that the text only resembles humour to individuals who have quite a good grasp of English: has anyone actually explained where the precise problems are, for individuals whose English may be good enough to see that it describes the song's lyrics, but not good enough to realise that it's a word play? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

<--I don't think that good faith is an issue here. It is clear that the summary is a joke, it is clear that it involves interpretation. It should also be clear that it is not "encyclopedic information". The persistent reinstatement of the section is disruptive, and pretending that it is a serious summary is disruptive as well. The most basic grasp of English reveals that it is a joke, and one can assume that someone who knows the song would not argue for a particular summary if they don't know the song and therefore don't know whether the details of that summary are correct. Look at the Doctor's talk page: is there any suggestion there that faulty English is to blame for their seeing the summary as anything but a joke? Drmies (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about Doctor in particular (it's fairly apparent that they have been reinserting this as a "joke") and more concerned about taking the attitude that anyone who would reinsert it must automatically be doing so in bad faith and warrant not only a level 3 "assume bad faith" warning, but an immediate final warning? And an OR warning at that? That seems far too heavy-handed to me. And I'm not convinced that a basic level of english understanding would reveal it to be a joke: the joke seems to be that it is breaking down slang lyrics into stiffly, absurdly formal english: I'm not convinced that someone with relatively limited grasp of English would understand that. And it'd make more sense to direct the user to this discussion and briefly explain why it is not constructive content first, rather than just flat-out giving them a "final" warning. In any case, this is getting a bit off-topic for this talk page; rather than argue about the appropriate action to take against those inserting the problematic material, we should discuss a more suitable replacement, if a "synopsis" for a song's content is actually deemed necessary. Personally I think as long as a more sensible, and shorter, replacement is used, a "synopsis" of the song's "plot", as it were, would benefit the article; though the previous content made a joke of it, the slang lyrics may indeed be difficult for many to accurately interpret. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Whew! All I did was revert a section deletion asking for a discussion on the article's talk page so we could arrive at consensus prior to deletion or modification. I immediately received a final warning for that along with threats to block! Responses for my call for discussion include comments like this from User talk: Beyond My Ken: "There is no discussion necessary, since the material is unencyclopedic". That seems to be the main argument for deletion of the synopsis put forth by all who favor deletion. That is, they simply assert that it is not encyclopedic. Or, that it is humorous. Or, that they simply don't like it. My assertion is that the synopsis accurately reflects and summarizes the song lyrics. The fact that it is humorous is a side effect of the humor inherently in the lyrics and the cultural perspective we in America may have. Also, I really don't get why I was given a final warning with no prior warning based on an incident discussion of a completely different article. This section of this talk page is, as far as I am aware, the first attempt at seriously discussing the merits of the synopsis. Can we focus on a discussion of the merits rather than asserting stuff like I am intentionally disruptive (for calling for a discussion!) ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...this is why I felt that delivering a final warning was undue. Believing that the section has value beyond simply being amusing is a content dispute, and needs discussion, not an immediate threat of blocking. Can we calm down and discuss the actual content issue under a new subheading? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wunsch, don't get me wrong: I got nothing against a synopsis. I didn't give a final warning to Doctorfree, and I think I wouldn't have--but at the same time, reintroducing that material, without even admitting, until just now, that it's tongue-in-cheek, I consider that disruptive, yes. There is no question that the synopsis we're discussing completely lacks encyclopedic content, and a discussion of its merits can be brief and seems to be consented upon by all but one: there aren't any. I have no wish to see Doctorfree blocked over this, but I would like for them to acknowledge that at some point it's not funny anymore. We have various essays on the topic, Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for one. What the Doctor(re-)inserted is not a plot summary, it's a joke, and denying that it's a joke undercuts the seriousness of their argument, if they have one. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I really like the Wikipedia policy of assumption of good faith, WP:AGF. I use it daily in all sorts of situations outside of Wikipedia. It's a policy I would like to see adopted throughout many areas of human relations. It's disturbing to me when other apparently experienced Wikipedia editors blatantly disregard this policy. I am primarily concerned with moving on to a discussion of the content of the synopsis and away from this discussion of me. However, before we focus on content let me reply to this thread to clarify my intent and rebut what I perceive as unfair and improper personal criticism.

"Calling this an accurate summary is in itself an attempt at humor, as far as I'm concerned." User:Drmies

"I'm not going to engage in a debate with someone pretending to not be in on the joke; it's a waste of time." User:Ohnoitsjamie

'it's fairly apparent that they have been reinserting this as a "joke"'User:Giftiger_wunsch

Fellow editors, I did not revert the deletion of the synopsis section as a joke. I am not attempting to be humorous. I am not "in on the joke". I simply believe the synopsis is an accurate, notable, verifiable, non-pov, not original research summary of the lyrics of this song. Can we at least agree to assume I am acting in good faith ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of how Wikipedia is going downhill. The synopsis in question was brilliant. It was removed only because a bunch of cranky talent-less editors couldn't find another outlet for their substandard efforts. I vote that it be brought back.User:ngarwood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.102.246 (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Content of Synopsis

I am starting a new section in hopes we can focus attention on the content of the recently removed and disputed Synopsis section here. To summarize the arguments I have seen on this issue thus far:

In favor of restoring the Synopsis

There is some sort of double standard going on here. Many movie, book and song articles have synopsis, but because this one is about a rapper liking big butts it gets cut? Get off your high horses people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.168.59 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Doctorfree states:

 The synopsis is an accurate summary of the song lyrics.
 It does not contain any POV but is a straightforward summation of the content of the lyrics.
 It does not represent original research or the editor's interpretation.
 The song and therefore a synopsis is certainly notable.
 The accuracy of the synopsis can easily be verified at many lyric sites.
 The section is well written and does not use offensive language.

In favor of deleting the Synopsis section as it was written

User:Drmies states:

 There is no encyclopedic content in that synopsis. 
 The discussion of Regulate (song) resulted in a consensus which should apply to this article as well
   (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#Regulate_.28song.29 )
 It is a lame attempt at humor.
 There are no merits.
 It is not well-written.
 It is not verified.
 It is stupid.
 It's not funny.
 It is not wikified.
 It is not encyclopedic in tone and content.
 the summary is a joke, it is clear that it involves interpretation.

User:Ohnoitsjamie atates:

 It is silly
 not going to engage in a debate with someone pretending to not be in on the joke
 it's a waste of time. (discussion)
 it's clearly original research and disruptive

User:Beyond My Ken states:

 There is no discussion necessary, since the material is unencyclopedic, and deliberately so.

Additional relevant editor comments User:Giftiger_wunsch states:

 ... saw no inaccuracy in it. It could certainly do with additional citation, and the tone needs to be improved...
 an accurate but poorly-worded section.
 Whether entirely serious or not, this is not vandalism
 the text only resembles humour to individuals who have quite a good grasp of English
 as long as a more sensible, and shorter, replacement is used, a "synopsis" of the song's "plot" ... would benefit the article
 though the previous content made a joke of it, the slang lyrics may indeed be difficult for many to accurately interpret.

User:Doctorfree quotes from Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions:

 "This does not mean articles on humor-related topics have no place on Wikipedia: The Office (US TV series), Red vs. Blue,
 and even   unintentionally funny articles such as Exploding whale all have a place on Wikipedia. Articles should be kept or
 rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research – not because they meet an editor's
 subjective view of humor."

Note that nearly all of the arguments thus far put forth favoring deletion of the synopsis are explicitly listed as arguments to avoid in discussion of deletion Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. Of the arguments thus far put forth those not listed as arguments to avoid above are the disagreement among editors as to whether the synopsis is well written, verifiable, and contains original research. I suggest we focus on these relevant arguments and discard or ignore all the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions such as "it's not encyclopedic". That is, do we consider the synopsis notable, verifiable, and devoid of original research? Is the section well written and, if not, how can it be improved? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time; no amount of wikilawyering is going to create a precedent for adding not-so-subtle joke content to articles. Continued efforts to reinstate obvious joke content will result in blocks. Furthermore, the lead of the article already summarizes the lyrical content. This is not a Shakespearean drama; it's a song about liking big butts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Attacks on my integrity and impugning my good faith do not constitute valid arguments for deletion of the synopsis section. Can none of you who favor deletion come up with a single argument in support of deletion that is not listed in the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? I suppose Ohnoitsjamie has actually raised one argument not listed - Sir Mix-a-Lot is not Shakespeare and therefore his works are not worthy of a synopsis. If no editor can come forth with a valid argument for deletion, I see no reason why the section should not be reinstated. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The "synopsis" is, in fact, an interpretation and analysis of the song, and therefore requires a citation from a WP:Reliable source. Without that, it's simply WP:original research, and also violated WP:NPOV.

It ain't going back in, so give it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally we get a legitimate argument. Is the synopsis original research ? The synopsis is basically a rephrasing of the lyrical content in a more universally understandable wording and style. I would agree that the synopsis should be improved by adding citations to the original lyrics so the rephrasing could be verified as simply restating the lyrical content. That is, we need to provide verifiability. I do not see any violation of WP:NPOV. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you believe there is such. At any rate, we at least have some point of agreement - the synopsis could benefit from citations. However, deletion is not the answer. Rather, shouldn't we add a "needs citation" tag and/or simply add citations to provide verifiability? I see a good argument for improvement of the section but no good argument for its deletion. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest proposing a rewritten synopsis. Even ignoring the fact that it was clearly intended to be humourous, which is inappropriate for a wikipedia article, it put too much weight on a "synopsis" of the song: we don't need a complete, literal breakdown or "translation" of the lyrics; perhaps some notable viewpoints on the underlying meaning of the lyrics (I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, it's a pretty notable song), but we don't need a humourous and WP:OR summary of what one editor thinks the song is commenting on, providing only an absolutely literal rephrasing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Doctorfree: Every single statement in the synopsis would need a citation from a reliable source, but even if you were to be able to do that, it still wouldn't be appropriate for the article, because it's totally unencyclopedic. It's humor.

Now, please stop, go edit something and improve the encyclopedia, you're just wasting your time and the time of anyone else who responds here. Continuing to press this issue in the face of the overwhelming consensus against it (which you've nicely illustrated above) will, at some point, start to be disruptive and you will likely be blocked for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@GW: An appropriate "synopsis" of the song would be something along the lines of "The singer expresses his love for women with large posteriors", hardly something the encyclopedia really needs, but it could go into the lede, I suppose, as long as it was cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking more of interpretations of the lyrics rather than synopsis here; like any other art form, there's bound to be some notable opinions on the meaning behind the song, and if we can reference some then we have some informative content. Accompanying that with brief, literal synopsis of the song's actual content, would make for a good section, providing we can improve the tone of the previous content. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is another interpretation of the meaning of the song, which is pretty clear (I think), but surely someone has written something about the song's impact on or reflection of the concept of female beauty (or sexual desireableness) in the urban African-American community, versus mainstream white standards. Something like that, if short (WP:UNDUE), striaght-forward, NPOV, and suitably referenced, would be a reasonable addition to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: A single citation referencing the actual lyrics would be sufficient to verify that the synopsis, as it was written, is a factual rephrasing of the song in a more formal style of writing. Then you proceed to accuse me of being disruptive and threaten a block if I continue to discuss this ? As for the assertion that we somehow have overwhelming consensus on the issue, that is not my perspective. Thus far the only reasonable comments on this issue have come from only two editors, myself and User:Giftiger wunsch. Other editors comments have all been spurious attacks on my character, threats, arguments listed in Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions, inane comments like "Every single statement in the synopsis would need a citation". I do not consider your participation in this discussion as contributing anything toward consensus.

@Giftiger wunsch: Your suggestion of a rewrite is reasonable. However, even the most basic rewrite of a synopsis would certainly be prone to the same objections. Even Beyond My Ken's attempt at an "appropriate" synopsis "The singer expresses his love for women with large posteriors" is essentially and qualitatively the same as the synopsis that was deleted - it is just shorter and much less thorough. The content of the lyrics are such that any synopsis is going to sound funny or look like a joke when in fact it is the song itself that contains these properties. Restating this in abbreviated formal Wikipedia style is going to sound funny to some. Which is why the original synopsis was, in my opinion, perfectly ok. We can improve it but I do not believe it should have been removed and continue to assert that it should be reinstated. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You have no consensus to restore, please do not do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

While we are in active discussion concerning this section's content significant edits would certainly be inappropriate. It seems backward to me that the section gets deleted without discussion then in order to get it restored we must go through a discussion. It would seem more appropriate to restore the section as it was then have a discussion on why it should be removed. That is what I suggested when I reverted the initial section deletion but my comments were ignored and the section was deleted without discussion. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The reasons have been made clear why it was deleted; it was original research and intended to be humorous. I refuse to pretend that someone could not be in on the joke who has a clear understanding of the English language and American culture. If you think the article needs a synopsis, write a new one from scratch and present it on this talk page. Other editors can suggest changes if it's overly verbose/academic, overly detailed per WP:UNDUE, or contains unsourced original research (all three of which were issues with the removed passage). Otherwise, give it a rest and move on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty boring to keep repeating the same thing over and over but here it goes hopefully only one more time. Simply stating that something is "original research" is not an argument. You need to demonstrate that it contains original research. Nothing in the synopsis was original research as it was all simply rephrasing the exact lyrics in a formal style of writing. Your next objection to the synopsis is that is is humorous. Being funny is not a reason to delete anything from Wikipedia. I've referenced Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_funny several times - did anyone actually read the section on "it's funny" ? And, yes, I did find the synopsis humorous but that is irrelevant. Finally, your suggestion to write a new synopsis would be fine except for the fact that we had a perfectly good well written synopsis that was deleted without discussion. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Doctorfree, did you read the section "it's funny" that you linked to? It says that something being funny is not a reason to keep it, and not an indication of its worth. In addition, wikipedia is a serious project and should not be treated as a joke. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if people can read and one would hope those editing Wikipedia articles can read and comprehend better than average. The section on "it's funny" in the article on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states quite clearly "This does not mean articles on humor-related topics have no place on Wikipedia: The Office (US TV series), Red vs. Blue, and even unintentionally funny articles such as Exploding whale all have a place on Wikipedia. Articles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research – not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor". That is, the subjective view of whether something is humorous is not a good reason for either it's inclusion or deletion. Our focus should be on the notability, verifiability, and lack of original research in the synopsis. Thus far no comments have demonstrated the synopsis to be non-notable, unverifiable, or containing original research. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting our time and yours. You are the only one arguing for this, and your arguments are convincing nobody. Consensus has been reached, both on this page and in this AN/I discussion that these verbose meme synopses are not encyclopedic and violate OR and NPOV. It is not going back into this article. Please drop the stick and step away from the dead horse you're beating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing more for me to add to this conversation, and as I said before, anyone re-adding this or similar synopses will be warned once and blocked. Editors who've already been blocked for it once will be blocked for a longer period. That's all, folks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• For - I am for the formal synopsis. I couldn't disagree with the nay-sayers more. Although it is humorous to read a well articulated break down it is not inappropriate, nor does it negatively reflect on the song, or artist, and more or less adds no bias towards opinion in the breakdown. I also believe that the articulate breakdown though humorous, does give insite as to why the song was so objectionable when it was initially released. You have stated that this other editor is the only one argueing for the synopsis to be included, but i believe that the nay sayers are all providing overtly negative and continue to make the same arguments over and over again. Let's face it, the original addition of the synopsis provide insite to the content of the song and provide a richer and more complete wiki-article for those interested in the facts of the song. kudos to the original writer. any edits on the articulate synopsis should only be to further improve the accuracy, of the synopsis, not to completely remove it. it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nophonenophone (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support plot synopsis in some form - So it is ever possible to have an encyclopedic synopsis of a hip-hop song? If so, what would it look like? If not, why not? These are important questions that should be fully answered before all of these sections are deleted. Especially since some of these sections seem to be fairly straight-forward, while others are obviously more tounge-in-cheek (for example, the deleted summary for Gin and Juice). They should not all be treated identically, but should be handled on a case-by-case basis. On the issue of Original Research, it is not typically required for plot summaries and the like to cite secondary sources. Quoting from Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Citations: "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source - the work of fiction itself." If the summary is simply a factual restating of the plot without interpretation, that doesn't constitute original research. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Melchoir's recent expansion of the article, including adding a content synopsis, is entirely within Wikipedia guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

History deletion

All of the revisions containing the disputed synopsis have been deleted by User:Ohnoitsjamie. This action seems rather drastic, unwarranted, and presumptive. How does one go about restoring the history of an article after it has been vandalized in this fashion ? Further, the user declares those edits as having been "purely disruptive". It should be clear from my comments in the synopsis sections of this discussion page (see above) that my edits were not disruptive and, further, that I provided significant and reasonable arguments in favor of the inclusion of this purely factual synopsis. Other editors have stated their agreement that either the synopsis as it was written or some form of it should be included. I believe the history of this article's revisions should be restored and the issue of the inclusion of a synopsis continue to be discussed. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

They were deleted as being "purely disruptive." Nothing useful was lost. You are among a small minority of regular users who supported the synopsis; the vast majority of regular contributors and admins agreed that it was disruptive and inappropriate, per the ANI thread. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The previous synopsis was useful for discussing the issue at least. I think your interpretation of RD3 is a bit extreme. The examples it cites ("allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose") don't seem at all to cover content disputes such as this one. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Three other regular users, including another admin, agree with me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The text of RD3 doesn't depend on how many people agree with you. Revision deletion is a serious action that shouldn't be done casually. It's not a tool for settling content disputes, and I think you're use of it as such is inappropriate. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. On the other hand, it's hopefully a moot point now, so I can't get worked up over it. Melchoir (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Kaldari. Furthermore, the information that the public talked about ought to be available to the public. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) (since this statement was revised a few times, I am reissuing my signature: — Rickyrab | Talk 06:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC) )

It is readily available to the public, just not here. If there is a compelling reason to undelete it, that's quite easy to do. I see no consensus to do so. Feel free to open up an ANI discussion; I'm confident that the consensus won't change. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is readily available to the public then what did the removal of 20 revisions of this article accomplish other than to emaciate the article history and make it difficult to assess the discussion ? You refer to a consensus but I am unaware of any discussion of revision removal let alone consensus on the fairly drastic action. Restore the revision history and initiate discussion on removal. If consensus is reached then remove the revisions deemed purely disruptive. Some revisions of this article may in fact have been purely disruptive and their removal appropriate. My revisions were not purely disruptive and have been the subject of most of the discussion here. I would once again call for the assumption of good faith - something I find sorely lacking here and a practice I would think is especially necessary in an administrator. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikinazis like this Jamie guy are why Wikipedia has gone to crap. Get a life, jeez. Or at least follow your own rules without projecting your bias into the wiki. Oh wait, you can't. Gotta have that control, right? 24.89.42.39 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a better idea

How about we write, you know, an encyclopedia article citing published commentary? Here's a start. If anyone wants to join in, this Google Books query returns 120 results. Melchoir (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion now constitutes Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

Nuff said. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Information

I believe it should be added that in 2011, this song was rated by VH1 as the #1 One-Hit Wonder of the 90s. --71.206.5.36 (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not this again

I'm under the impression that we have a consensus. Does anyone agree with this edit restoring the old joke "synopsis" over the sourced version? Melchoir (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely no to using Wikipedia as a vehicle for jokes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Connection to Spuds MacKenzie

This Mental Floss article on Spuds MacKenzie points out that Mix-A-Lot has stated he wrote Baby Got Back as a reaction to the Spuds MacKenzie girls, the "Spudettes." Worthy of inclusion here? Extraface (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez' article has a source (from spin.com, dated November 13, 2014) in which Sir Mix-A-Lot tells Lopez was the inspiration for the song. 85.76.102.33 (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby Got Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mpzL5EW5?url=http%3A%2F%2Flongboredsurfer.com%2Fcharts.php%3Fyear%3D1992 to http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=1992

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)