Talk:Baby Got Back

message: 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)
thread_title: David Ford Lawsuit 

message: 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)
thread_title: Jonathan coulton Cover Reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Older comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  chubby chasers? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My recent edit. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Parodies Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fat Princess (PS3) Credits 

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

message: that this article is perfect in every way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.143.193 (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this so hardcore. It needs to be locked JUST LIKE THIS. Allie (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

text: Thirded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.168.59 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  just wanted to say.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Three other regular users, including another admin, agree with me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: History deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  I have a better idea 

message: Nuff said.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This discussion now constitutes Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some Information 

message: I'm under the impression that we have a consensus. Does anyone agree with  restoring the old joke "synopsis" over the sourced version? Melchoir (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most definitely no to using Wikipedia as a vehicle for jokes. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not this again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Connection to Spuds MacKenzie 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified