Talk:Hollaback Girl/Archive 1

Picture messed up
The picture that is supposed to be of Gwen on Celebrity Death Match isn't of her. Instead it seems like a screen shot from some computer game of a girl standing in a public bathroom in front of a line of urinals. I don't see how the original picture (If there ever was one) added to the discussion of this particular song, so I think it should just be removed. However, I'm still a little new and this is a featured article, so I'm not going to touch it myself. If someone more experienced could take a look please, I'd be grateful. Thank you.

IsaacSapphire 23:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture's right. As the article states, Celebrity Deathmatch is in claymation.  In the episode, the interview happened in a (presumably unisex) restroom.  The screenshot shows Stefani spelling the R in broccoli.  Would it work better if it showed one where she's more contorted, like the letter B?  ShadowHalo 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Crossover
In the article, it says ""Hollaback Girl" managed to do this by becoming one of the first records to break down racial and genre barriers in the 2000s. " I'm not so sure about this, as I think that "Hey Ya!" is a better example, since it did get a lot of airplay on alternative rock and hot adult contemporary stations, certainly more so that this song. ErikNY 01:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's quite true, but "Hey Ya!" is an urban song. There has been an ongoing battle between urban and rock music for a long time now. However, in most cases, both urban music and rock music lovers tend to be able to agree on pop music, as it can be described as a cross between two in some terms.


 * You are correct, but "Hollaback Girl"'s genre is what secured it of this title. Thank you for your input though. DrippingInk 16:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I honestly think the difference between "Hey Ya!" and "Hollaback Girl" is that "Hey Ya!" has musical merit and doesn't make our country even stupider than it already is. Also, "Hey Ya!" did, in fact, break down racial barriers in popular music in 2003. "Hollaback Girl" was excreted from the back end of a gibbon (a.k.a Gwen Stefani's Mouth), and it has set our country back five years in racial boundaries, back 10 years in gender boundaries, and back approximately 500 years or more musically. It sounds like little more than people throwing around trashcans somewhat rhythmically, with the awful unpleasantness of Gwen Stefani's evil and disgustingly annoying voice over it.

Oh, by the way, "Hollaback Girl" doesn't have a genre. It is vile noise pollution that is killing America. Anyone who buys or downloads this song is killing America. Don't listen to this drivel, read a book or go learn something, do your goddamned 9th grade homework instead of being stupefied by this mindfuck of a song. (And if you listen to this song, you obviously haven't mentally progressed beyond the 9th grade, so don't argue.)

Thank you for reading my rant.

--George The Man 05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Silly question
I'd like to know WHAT a Hollaback Girl is to begin with? (I'm writing from Europe)

Its supposed to be someone who "hollers back": someone who relies purely on shouting back but never actually fights back and stands up for herself. When Gwen Stefani says "I ain't no hollaback girl", it means she does not have to shout back and that she will be ready to fight her enemies. This meaning has not been proven, according to my knowledge. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want a laugh, check out this over-earnest explanation of the song. RMoloney 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's another funny explanation of the song, by Orange County Weekly.

Does the song "Hollaback Boy" have the same meaning? Gabe Saporta made this song. I don't any way to link it sorry. Le Raine03:43 PM, September 8, 2006

And why on earth is this question not answered in the article? Many people don't know what a "Hollaback Girl" is supposed to be. So please - put it into the article. In fact, i don't know why a single song should have its own article... weird english wikipedia... whatever... --85.182.69.235 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article already states what a hollaback girl is. "A hollaback girl responds to a confrontation with words."  ShadowHalo 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that in "urban" slang, a "Hollaback" girl is a girl who is at the beck and call of her boyfriend. As in when he hollers, she will "hollaback." I guess Gwen means it in a different way, but it is very confusing. Cuvtixo 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge vandalism
If you look at a previous edit of the "George Washington Bridge" article, someone vandalized the page by putting in some of the lines from this song. Why did that person do that?

Drunk? Drugged? Dying? --85.182.69.235 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumour
I'd commented out a passage of speculation, asking for citations; it's been uncommented, but without citations. I've moved it here in the hope of enlightenment:


 * It is also rumored that Stefani wrote the song to confront Courtney Love, who disparaged Stefani as the music industry's "cheerleader". Some of the confrontational lyrics are:


 * both of us want to be the winner, but there can only be one
 * so I'm gonna fight, gonna give it my all, gonna make you fall, gonna sock it to you
 * that's right, I'm the last one standing, another one bites the dust


 * are said to be speaking directly to Love.

Rumoured where and by whom? Said by whom? If there's a reputable source, I'm sure that it can be given, and the section replaced. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You were given a source a few months ago, which you disgustingly called "gossip", despite the fact that you did not and still do not know whether this is true or not. I have restored the information, as it plays a major role in "Hollaback Girl"'s writing. --Winnermario 13:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What source are you talking about? The source should be a specific article with a specific date, not just the magazine name, "Seventeen"- and what's more, there should be a quote. What did Courtney say? Winnermario, you don't seem to understand Wikipedia's standards. Cuvtixo 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, these comments are from a year and a half ago. Love stated, "Being famous is just like being in high school. But I'm not interested in being the cheerleader. I'm not interested in being Gwen Stefani. She's the cheerleader, and I'm out in the smoker shed."  The quotation is in the article, along with the issue date and page number.  ShadowHalo 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

the "probing analysis" link
Okay, I'm not going to get into a rv war over this. But what's wrong with the link to the Greg Stacy piece? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave it in my edit summary; hang on, I'll just go and dredge it from the history...
 * Ah, here it is: "rm link to facetious, sub-Pete-&-Dud piece". That sums it up, I think.  It doesn't belong here; it contains nothing that we'd like to have gone into the article but couldn't find room for.  It's not that I find it unoriginal and unfunny (I mean, I do, but that's not the point), just that it's not suitable for the links section of an encyclop&aelig;dia. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately OmegaWikipedia doesn't have the courtesy or the patience (or the understanding of Wikipedia) of MarkGallagher, and reinstated the link with an edit summary that merely referred to my reason for removing it as "questionable". If it's questionable, could it be questioned please? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I wanna know what's the meaning of the expression: This shit is bananas. Why bananas, what does it represent? I'm from Brazil.


 * I don't know for sure in this case, but "bananas" is a (slightly old-fashioned) slang term for "mad", "crazy". --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only is "bananas" an old fashioned term for "crazy" or perhaps "manic", but it is also an old fashioned cheerleader cheer from at least the 80's and probably earlier. The cheer included spelling the word in the same rhythm and melody that is used in this song. The introduction to this song is also borrowed/inspired from traditional cheerleading cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.246.183 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hollaback = Houellebecq ? Has anyone thought about this?

American football
It seems to me that this song was written with the intention of becoming a football stadium anthem (along the lines of, say, Song 2), both lyrically and musically (and even in terms of the video). Not being American, I wouldn't know if this is accurate, or if whoever it is that play music at games have picked up on the song. Any ideas? RMoloney 01:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Harlem Bat Girl
What is a "hollaback girl"? Is it a piece of American football cheerleading slang? Don't answer me here, put it in the article. Although the video features cheerleading equals Toni Basil's "Mickey", the drumbeat seems closer to Cameo's "Word Up". Five years from now this article will consist of a paragraph in the article about the album from which the song came; five years after that the article on the album from which it came will be a paragraph in the article about Gwen Stefani; and five years after that the article on Gwen Stefani will be a paragraph in the article on No Doubt. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Gwen Stefani made up her own meaning of "hollaback girl." "Holla" is originally African-american slang for holler, as in shout. Hollaback would be to shout back. The band No doubt apparently likes to make up its own slang, as in "hellagood." Cuvtixo 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A hollaback girl "hollas back" when confronted, meaning she responds verbally. Stefani, who "ain't no hollaback girl", is upping the ante, so to speak.  "Hella good" was not a term made up by No Doubt.  It's slang from Southern Californian dialect.  ShadowHalo 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Stefani song to be pinned for FA status
Now that Cool (song) has earned featured article status, this is the next Gwen Stefani song that will be aiming for the very same honour. I will begin work on the article as soon as possible. --Winnermario 02:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Critical response header
If User:Mel Etitis continues to remove my notes or parts of quotes from the critics, I will be filing a complaint&mdash;you don't just go and remove something when you feel it does not look appealing to an article. --Winnermario 23:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm correcting the appalling English, and I removed criticisms that added nothing to the article (being either nothing more than descriptions – and not very informative descriptions – of the music, or references to the producers' style). File a complaint.  The nature of Wikipedia is that anyone can "just go and remove something when [they] feel it does not look appealing to an article", and others can re-add it.  That's why I changed what you'd added instead of complaining that you'd added it.  If you can't cope with the fact that others can and will edit what you write, Wikipedia may be the wrong place for you; you seem to need our own Web page. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Mel, although I agree with your edits (and Winnermario, you are free to "file a complaint", but keep in mind Mel's one of the people you might consider filing one with), I don't think it's particularly helpful to invite good editors to leave. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Appalling English? Excuse me? There is no such thing as perfect English, so don't think you're anymore a better contributor to Wikipedia than I am.
 * And don't bother using cover-ups like "I removed criticisms that added nothing to the article (being either nothing more than descriptions – and not very informative descriptions – of the music, or references to the producers' style)." Criticism is most certainly welcome, but that is besides the point. You went and removed the entire Critical Response section. Unacceptable. --Winnermario 19:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Bravo, Winnermario... wherever you have gone. --Hollow Wilerding 20:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Eric Greenwood
Can someone specify where Greenwood is from, make the first ref to him its own para, and properly represent things? In a copyedit earlier I made his comments an indented citation because they were long enough but I notice now we have " on top of ", which isn't how it should be. Marskell 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hollow: don't change from correct to incorrect
You changed:
 * Internationally, reaction to "Hollaback Girl" was generally positive, but not as overwhelming as it had been in the US.

to
 * Worldwide, reaction to "Hollaback Girl" was generally positive, but not as overwhelming as it had been in the North America.

That is not accurate on both counts. International, in this usage, means OUT OF, as in "domestic trade" versus "international trade". Worldwide means ALL OF THE WORLD, so here, it would mean the US included. Internationally (out of the US), the song didn't do as well as in the US. Using "worldwide" means: "Around the entire world (which includes the US), it didn't do as well as in the US." International may not be the most precise word here, but worldwide isn't BETTER, it is worse. If you're going to change something, you shouldn't make it less precise than it was to begin with.

Second, North America vs US. The Chart performance section deals with the US only. Billboard is US figures. North America includes the US, Canada, and Mexico. There is a difference. --Tsavage 03:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent points. However, I'd point out that "worldwide" and "outside the US" are generally preferable to "internationally" – comparing "international" and "domestic" figures is taking a US POV, and we've got more than enough of that on Wikipedia without insisting on its correctness. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "international" and "domestic" figures is taking a US POV - Yes, precisely. To risk putting too fine a point on it, the paragraph these changes refer to is the last, in effect, footnote entry in an extremely overlong, absolutely US-centric discussion of the song's performance, based on (except for a sentence or so on another US chart) the numerous different charts of Billboard, which is absolutely the "Voice of America" (as in, America=USA) in the major label music industry. Intentionally or not, the section concerns business in the USA, capped by a few words on the rest of the world. The way it's all written, "internationally" is absolutely clear and appropriate. It should properly be titled, "Chart performance in the US". That's why the section needs a rewrite, as I noted in the FAC talk page... But, yes, I agree with you: "outside the US" would be better still, and in this context would still only highlight the imbalanced US POV (I mentioned above: International may not be the most precise word here, I guess the reversion of the change, which I did, was also a point here...) ;) --Tsavage 15:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Canada isn't in the article and I'm Canadian. Wow. Impressively stupid of me, I'd say. Pardon while I include its position. --Hollow Wilerding 20:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Replaced "directed at Love" lyrics example
Took this out and replaced with a verse that better illustrates the point of being made that Stefani is addressing Love:


 * "Both of us want to be the winner
 * But there can only be one
 * So I'm gonna fight, gonna give it my all
 * Gonna make you fall, gonna sock it to you
 * That's right, I'm the last one standing
 * Another one bites the dust"

--Tsavage 22:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And I just reverted, as the above lyrics are a better example. --Hollow Wilerding 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I won't change it again at this point, but for comparison's sake, and future use, the more illustrative (since it also has one of the 37 "shit"s, and a reference to the cheerleading theme) quote is:


 * I heard that you were talking shit
 * And you didn't think that I would hear it
 * People hear you talking like that, getting everybody fired up
 * So I'm ready to attack, gonna lead the pack
 * Gonna get a touchdown, gonna take you out
 * That's right, put your pom-poms down, getting everybody fired up

--Tsavage 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Point well made. I will revert to the lyrics you chose, User:Tsavage. --Hollow Wilerding 02:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Article upgrade
I replaced the section. Apart from the fact that this article needs a section about the actual music (a song starts with MUSIC, after all, the chart positions and videos come later...), this contained new information, like the fact that there were guitars and trumpets... --Tsavage 04:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Since "shit" is so prominently mentioned as a song feature in this article, there should be a description of how "shit" was replaced in the clean versions and video. --Tsavage 04:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I replaced the additional Mickey information. Hollow: Please think a minute before reflexively changing so much stuff back. I'm obviously working on the article, not trying to destroy it. Here, MAYBE everyone in the world but me instantly remembers "Mickey". In case not, it is probably useful, interesting background in an article that's supposed to be COMPREHENSIVE, to point out the cheerleading connection. Especially in a paragraph about "pop culture references". Or maybe you don't know the song/chant? It was HUGE... And in the 1980s, an apparently favorite Stefani haunt. So, making that connnection explicit (FA's or any good article should be reasonably self-contained) perhaps sheds some light (duh) on why "Mickey" is echoed/tributed/whatever in the cheerleader-themed "Hollaback". No? --Tsavage 04:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's what we'll do: I'll attempt to research why the word "shit" appears in the song so frequently, and attempt to locate information on the structure and music. However, as per present time, I must replace the musical structure back into "Composition and meaning" as it is a stub. --Hollow Wilerding 17:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll leave it out for now, provided you note your intentions as above on the FAC page as well... --Tsavage 18:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Pop culture Highlander reference?
I don't get the Highlander reference. On the LP version of Hollaback, I don't hear any musical indication of Highlander. I suppose one could make a connection like this: the complete line in question is, "All the boys want to be the winner, but there can only be one", which does summarize the Highlander series plotline (immortals kill each other off till only one remains), and contains an approximation of the "there can be only one" signature line from the movie (lyrics: "there can only be one"), and the original movie had a Queen soundtrack, and "Another One Bites the Dust" (Queen song) is musically referenced (trumpet stabs) at the end of the same verse, with the lyric "another one bites the dust", and Stefani does seem generally to "reference the 1980s" (Highlander is 1986), so some enterprising music analyst could cite a Highlander connection -- and it's as like as not "true" -- BUT, unsupported, it's complete speculation, and too much of a stretch (ie. original analysis by the editor) the way it's presented here. Might as well have the editors speculate on the meaning of "hollaback girl" as well. IMO, of course... Please correct me if I missed something! --Tsavage 20:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unless some source is provided which shows that this is more than idle speculation this probably doesn't belong in the article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would also agree, because I never inserted the information into the article (it was added long before I signed up on Wikipedia). Check the history for evidence. --Hollow Wilerding 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No-one is out to get you here, Hollow :) Tsavage is just trying to improve the article, regardless of who contributed individual segments of it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

she doesn't know that.
 * I do now. --Hollow Wilerding 03:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

From the time I first heard this song, I felt "hollaback girl" was a reference to the automatons in the stands at a high school sporting event. Gwen's declaration of "I ain't no hollaback girl" is a shout out to those of us who refused to give up the "s" when those vapid, bubbly, perfect jumping girls demanded that we do so. Paralyzed by shyness or defiance - that's our shit. shsq


 * Could you provide a source or reference for your claim? &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 21:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another Gwen Stefani Commercial Advertisement?
Fresh from the featured advert for "Cool" we now have yet another free advert masquerading as a legitimate Wiki article. Please explain to me why you feel that in 100 years time someone will type the words "Hollaback Girl" into our search engine expecting to see this article? Yes she should have a bio, but a track by track uncritical puff piece for each song? No. --HasBeen 14:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You could say the same even for the Beatles. Their songs aren't going to be known in one-hundred years. Listen, we're attempting to build an encyclopedia. A modern-day encyclopedia. One-hundred years from now? You're getting ahead of yourself, my friend. Far ahead of the encyclopedia, and yourself. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it would be wonderful if wikipedia had articles explaining all the popular songs of the early 20th century. Kappa 01:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's quite sad that Category:Songs by Cole Porter, all articles of poor quality, contains less pages than Category:Nickelback songs or Category:Gwen Stefani singles. I don't think the solution is to reduce the amount of modern songs, but to put more work into the older ones. It's a systematic bias issue that Wikipedia has. Leithp (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. We should be thankful we are writing all this stuff now, when it's current&mdash;in 100 years it would be very difficult to write so much about this song, but now it's comparatively easy. Everyking 09:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On looking into the Cole Porter thing further, I found that the category wasn't fully populated, which I've now done. My point still stands, I think...... Leithp (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Without unnecessarily dismissing the positive points raised, may I draw your attention back to the initial question of longevity for this article, as per the Wiki-inclusion guidelines? Do you honestly believe that in the year 2105 that a Wikipaedia user is going to type in the words “Hollaback Girl” expecting to find this ephemeral, predominantly MTV-specific pop song?

Has it made such an impact on the collective imagination e.g. “Happy Birthday”, “New York, New York”, that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be singing it?

Due to the very nature of mass marketing, articles about commercial pop songs are very easy to verify. Does this by itself validate their inclusion in this project?

This sort of grass roots advertising is often effectively undetectable, what with zombie e-teamers running all over the web. Interesting the speed at which you all rebuked my enquiry, as if to illustrate this last point… --HasBeen 11:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In 2105, no, I doubt there will be any significant interest in "Hollaback Girl". But this article will (hopefully!) still exist for those who are interested in researching the subject. There are plenty of people who are interested in the music of 100 years ago and research it. And it's a valid historical study&mdash;although of course elitists back then trashed the music of that time, too, and wouldn't have thought anybody in 2005 would care about it. People reading about past music today would be very grateful if in 1905 they had had the technology to record that info as well as we are doing today. Everyking 11:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In any case, how on earth can you judge what people will be interested in 100 years from now? People are interested in Hollaback Girl now and if that changes a few years from now the article can be reviewed then. Your other points seem relate to what you think of the quality of the article. So, to use a wiki-cliche, fix it! Leithp (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. How is a cut-and-paste from a press release going to aid our futuristic researcher? Why would they wiki, when they could search the sources? I'm not arguing that this information shouldn't be included in the project, just that it should be put where it belongs, into the bio of the musician concerned. That is where people will search, that is where this information should sit. To generate a stand-alone for every corporate single release is to extend the hold of mass marketing into yet another public domain. Please see the entry at the water pump. --HasBeen 10:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, do you have any idea how large that would make the bio articles? Also, these songs are notable topics in their own right, not mere details in an artist's biography. Everyking 11:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The limiting size of a single, all-inclusive article would ensure that marketing pitches like this one for GS would be minimised. It would ensure that encyclopaedic information is kept, and advertising junk like this gets canned. Join me here Village pump (proposals) under Protecting Wikipedia from commercial advertising... --HasBeen 09:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion has been dead for a few years now, but in case it arises again, and for all similar discussions, my guess is that at one point, if the number of daily, weekly or monthly hits for this article goes below number X, Wikipedia will eventually consider it for deletion. Which would be the only truly fair way of handling the longevity aspect for articles, as no one, absolutely no one can predict what is relevant in the future. Take Beethoven, we assume he will be important in 100 years because he has been so for what is it, 200-300 years, but can we say for sure that in 100 years we still will care, or even know? Anything could possible happen, ranging from wars, plagues or just global disinterest in classic arts. Maybe Hollaback Girl will be considered as epic as the 5th? If anyone can tell with 100% guarantee, please contact me, I have an open position for that person! ;) Sorry to reopen the debate, I felt like doing so. Mister Denial (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue with quality
Since I halted from editing this article last week, why does it appear to have declined in quality? We don't require another Kelly Clarkson on Wikipedia. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Hollow! I've returned to Wikipedia, but only for a short amount of time!


 * Actually, I myself would like to know about this article's decline as well... --Winnermario 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Shit
I personally don't think that word "s**t" should be used in this article. There are several children on the site, me being one of them. Besides, I didn't even realize that that word was in the song in the first place. Steveo2
 * The word is used so frequently in the song that I'm shocked you didn't realize it... well, generally speaking, we don't like to censor things much. We sometimes draw a line when it comes to explicit images, but this is just a word. Everyking 17:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just a word; no harm no foul. --Madchester 01:03, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand. (By the way, I thought it said, "It's bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S.) Steveo2 10:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is probably because you've been listening to the watered-down MTV or radio-friendly versions. Barneyboo 11:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't censor profanity. Free speech is teh secks. :P --Kross 13:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it should be used in the article or not, it's poorly placed and doesn't fit into any current part of the article. Maybe a "trivia" section would be better. I've removed it. Dave 19:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should cause that's part of the music.


 * Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.--Fallout boy 21:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of "shit" in the song
What is missing from this article is any discussion about the use of the word "shit" in the lyrics, which required a censored version be released, but otherwise seems to have passed by a lot of people without controversy. I even heard an uncensored version on an AM radio station not long ago, which surprised me. Is this song considered a bit of a milestone in the acceptance of language in popular music? Ten years ago, it would have been banned left, right, and center. I think this should be referenced in some way, but am not familiar enough with the song to do so myself. 23skidoo 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If a child has never heard the word shit, they shouldn't be on the internet at all. I doubt you could find a four year old who hadn't heard it.


 * The issue is its gratuitiousness, i.e.: is it really necessary that the word, so often? Can another word be used to the same effect?  A regulator may allow swearing, nudity, violence etc., but not say swearing for the sake of swearing.  Kransky 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's strange that the article mentions contraversy over the use of shit, but doesn't really go into it in any depth.

Masia One version
Should it be noted that Canadian rapper Masia One did some sort of version of this song on her Mississauga Remixes mini-album? The song is called "Ballin Wack", and it almost sounds like a mix between an anthem and a hate shout-out to Stefani. I can't be sure on the second part though; there are plenty of ways to overanalyze songs. ~ Wapiko 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
I think it's weird that Gwen has never mentioned the song's meaning. Surely she had people asking her in interviews about that? So did she evade the questions? I find it hard to believe no interviewer would ask that. Everyking 05:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hollenbeck
Hollenbeck is a police district station and city park in East Los Angeles. The young women from this area have been referred to alternately as "Hollenbeck girls" and "Hollaback girls" long before the Gwen Stefani song. Is this a coincidence or is it the inspiration for the lyric?

I thought the same thing when I first heard the song. Then again, it would take the meaning to another level if Gwen were talking "shit" about Hollenbeck girls in her song...

urban dictionary
I removed a sentence regarding urban dictionary from the main article, and its reference link. Urban dictionary is not any sort of reliable source. --Xyzzyplugh 08:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Content
Could someone please add a paragraph on the song's content--or can I just not find it? Something similar to the description of the music video. In other words--the article is huge, but there's not a tiny bit of information on what the song is about.

Weird Video
I saw this video the other day that had this song playing, and it was some girl with like a banana coming out of her ass and another girl tried to catch it with her mouth. It's like a sort of shock-site, could anyone give me the link? P.S. - No, this is not a joke. It exists, and no, before you start thinking it, I don't get aroused by it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.111.115.80 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC).


 * You mean http://www.blink-182.com? Yep, it's a shock site alright, and ironically, it's pretty much the only perfect visualization of that Gwen thinks when she says "This s%#%'s Bananas" ViperSnake151 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Diss songs (3rd Opinion)
I added Hollaback Girl to Category:Diss songs, and it was later removed. A diss song is "a song which has the main purpose of verbally assaulting and insulting a person or a group of people"; this song certainly seems to be insulting Courtney Love. Though it's primarily rap songs, it contains Sweet Home Alabama (song) and How Do You Sleep?. My understanding is that though many diss songs are the product of hip hop rivalries, this is not a requirement to be considered a diss song. ShadowHalo 05:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After reviewing this article and the Diss song article, I see no reason why Hollaback Girl should not be included in Category:Diss songs. In forming this opinion, I did not consider whether non-hip-hop songs should be excluded from the category (an argument that I would probably have found unconvincing anyway) because Hollaback Girl was ranked 8 on the U.S. hip-hop charts. --Selket Talk 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GA status
One of the better GA noms I've seen in awhile. I find nothing to keep it from GA, but you could expand the Music and Structure section. Rlevse 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Meaning
OK, the article does a good job of explaining the inspiration and then dismisses the OC Weekly interpretation (and by extension, others), but fails to actually pin down what Stefani herself seemed to think it meant, or to assert that there is no specific meaning. It actually reads almost as though a paragraph has been dropped. Minor nit, congratulations overall. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The song doesn't have a specific meaning (because it's bad like that), but the overall theme is that a "hollaback girl" would respond to Love's comment with more rumors and talk. Stefani, however, is essentially challenging Love to a fight (WTF, they're both grown women).  Anyway, I've added this interpretation (referenced).  That's the generally accepted meaning since, from the article, "Stefani never disclosed the song title's meaning".  Would it be better if it was changed from that to something like "Stefani never disclosed the song's specific meaning" or something like that?  ShadowHalo 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that at least half of pop songs have next to or no meaning. Some producer guys probably sit together and write whatever that rhymes with 'baby' and 'you' and then make a catchy chorus. Add some synthesisers, and you've got a hit. lol But I agree with ShadowHalo.Nukleoptra 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On Main Page
The Article will be on the main page on 13th.WOOOOW! User:Luxurious.gaurav

NOOOOOO!!!!!
WHY WIKIPEDIANS? WHYYYYYY???? FEATURED??? WHYYYY???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutronbomb (talk • contribs) 00:11, June 13, 2007 (UTC)
 * It's about the quality of the article, not the quality of the song. Muahahahaha.  ;-)  ShadowHalo 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This shit is bananas. b-a-n-a-n-a-s. --Bobak 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting ShadowHalo's amazingly questionable music interests aside, at least the articles are of great quality :) &mdash; Deckiller 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is still longer than Stairway to Heaven's and yet I have never heard of this song. All I can say is wow.--Kjmoran 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stairway to Heaven is good, but overrated IMO. I recommend introducing yourself to two of the greatest intellectual journeys: the discographies of Rush and Dream Theater :) &mdash; Deckiller 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to egg this on, and I do realize what this article is worth, but I was hoping to pop over to Stairway's page (or maybe a Mozart concerto) and see a star before one on this song. I'm simply suprised at what gets nutured to FA, and what doesn't. And for the record, Rush earned my full respect when I heard ESL for the first time. :)--Kjmoran 02:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I resent that. I actually hate some of her songs (this one included).  ShadowHalo 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I can't listen to this simpleton music any more. I have to listen to prog rock or something at least related to prog. &mdash; Deckiller 02:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I doubt the quality of the song, the quality of the article is unquestionable. We need to put aside our musical differences and respect the decision to promote this article to featured status. MarkBrown8952 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Trust me; we all understand that. I'm just taking the opportunity to take a few potshots :) &mdash; Deckiller 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can say the article is as good as the song is bad. Maybe I'll be able to say the same for Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song) someday, but that'd take years of work.  ;-)  ShadowHalo 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I want to take potshots (and I do), I am a bit too afraid to do so, considering I am a newly registered member. Perhaps after a few months of contributing to this wonderful website, I can take shots freely without fear of prosecution. MarkBrown8952 02:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one cares, and this "wonderful website" is quickly becoming the biggest /b/ of the internet. Fire away.NinjaHydra 03:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!" Wikipedia is meant to educate and inform, and should not participate in the erosion of intelligence, taste, culture, art, broadcast radio, etc., etc., etc... the process of which we are constantly reminded by every form of corporate-owned media.TeamZissou 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This my s***? Anyway...you're right. Featured articles are meant to be comprehensive, informative articles. In this case, the FAC found that it was, even if the subject of the article is...shall we say bananas? That the article is about a really, really campy/trashy song isn't something that can be fixed.  ShadowHalo 03:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Shadow, what made you decide to spearhead the Stefani FA pushes if you're not a fanboy/fangirl? &mdash; Deckiller 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this was the first article I took to FAC, mainly because it was very comprehensive from Velten's work with it (see the ArticleHistory). I do like some of her work too, like What You Waiting For?; the main thing is just that I really like No Doubt. Unfortunately, it's much harder to get information for those articles. Nearly every one of Stefani's singles (except Crash (Gwen Stefani song)) have a decent amount of media coverage. Unfortunately, there's about as much Internet information available on a No Doubt album as there is on a Gwen Stefani song, and chart information almost impossible to get. So I'm pumping out GAs on her solo career instead. (Though hopefully she'll finally go back and make another album with them like she said she would over a year ago.) ShadowHalo 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what a "hollaback girl" is. - Amorwikipedia 03:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The most commonly accepted meaning is that a hollaback girl responds to a confrontation with words." The following is a bit of OR, but Stefani's extending Love's high school metaphor. She's saying that rather than responding to Love by spreading rumors or talking trash, she'd rather challenge Love to a fight ("Meet me at the bleachers/No principals, no student-teachers"). Ironically, she really is just talking a lot of trash since she's not going to be fighting Love anytime soon. ShadowHalo 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I invite everyone aghast at this article to improve subjects which they deem should be featured, like dream or water. I'm still getting random "whyy ist frank kelpacii featurd?" unsigned comments Frank Klepacki. Ah heck, my cover's blown. I'm really here to just flame the article topic. I had to endure hearing this at random in public places, and now it's back to haunt me like a demon. Die, damn you! Zeality 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider the purpose of the featured article section. If only articles concerning topics which are generally accepted as profound, serious and meaningful are considered, then it would act to promote the Wiki as a bearer of such materials, by showing high quality articles on such topics.  However, if ALL articles are considered and the only criteria is the quality of the article, then it would act to promote the improvement of all articles in the wiki.  The latter purpose is in fact that of the featured article section.  Toby Douglass 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been a very long time since I last edited this article. Its quality has improved incredibly, and I am very pleased with all the work ShadowHalo put into it. I also agree that it is a rather ridiculous track with no musical talent, but still, overlooking this factor is all we can do. Indeed many of us have opposing conflicts pertaining to the actual song itself, but spare us the drama; we need to be civil and respect the decisions the users at the FAC made. I remember giving up on this single's article because of the difficulty I was having, and the then-ongoing social issues, but looking at it now, I must applaud all the users involved in helping it reach FA status. Although "Hollaback Girl" is not a good song, it is certainly notable, at least in my opinion. Velten 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well-put. There's actually more to the song's influence in pop culture than is presented in the article simply because of more recent releases and their coverage, mainly with Fergie and Nelly Furtado.  I'll see about adding a paragraph here and at Love. Angel. Music. Baby. when I get the chance (unless someone else wants to go ahead).  ShadowHalo 14:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A well written and comprehensive article, worthy of FA and the Main Page. Congrats to everyone that worked on it. Paulbrock 13:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're f°cking kidding me? This Consumerist backwash trash gets to be featured article? She f°cking sucks! "Quality of the article" - The Qualuty of the article doesn't reflect the quality of the product.142.217.117.132 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow you actually proved the exact opposite of what you intended: the quality of the product does not reflect the quality of the article which is enough to get it featured. Gdo01 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you got me wrong.My intentions where to say that Gwen, hell, the entire Pop music, Wait no, 95% of all music scince janurary 1st 1980 is corperate backwash spat on with Sex for flavour aimed at "Tweens". Its Shit. Shit. Shit. I Defacate. I can't stand it. Good article though. 142.217.117.132 22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of points to make on this debate. Firstly, this article does not seem to have been deemed a Good Article at any stage (according to its milestones). Did it therefore go against protocol by going to be an FAC?? I am having a lot of trouble getting the article Peter Canavan to WP:GA status, even though it is very comprehensive, should I skip this and just get the neccessary info I need for Featured status??
 * Also, I'm not going to question the validity of this being a Featured article (i.e. the quality of the article is undisputed), although I am quite concerned that the Featured Articles of the Day are too often pop culture articles. Is this encyclopedic? Would articles on History, Geology, Nature etc (or at least Biographies of notable persons) not be more appropriate for the home page??--Macca7174 18:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Articles on those subjects occupy the main page most of the time. Raul tries to balance subjects out; I imagine that he (and I) take a particular pleasure in watching the huge uproar over some (gasp!) pop culture article's placement on the main page. It's as if encyclopedias weren't mean to cover anything past 1950 dealing with video games or music. Zeality 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Last time we had a song here, it was Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana. Now that's a song that had een impact on an entire generation. This one is just a "one of the many" song. High King of the Noldor 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Smells Like Teen Spirit would be a much more encyclopedic main page article - because we are now fully aware of the impact it had on western society, but I would have trouble arguing the same for say, Come As You Are. Also, 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, was a highly notable Grand Prix, because of the deaths that occured during it, including the then championship leader, Ayrton Senna, but the 2007 Australian Grand Prix would not be as worthy of a main page fixture, even if the standard of the article was extremely high.
 * The example that particularly springs to mind for me is V for Vendetta (film), which became a featured article within three months of its cinema release, and three months ahead of its DVD release. It was on the main page on November 5, 2006. How could we could know about the film's true impact on society/culture or whatever within such a short space of time. I'm not saying the film is Non notable, but I think there should be a higher standard of notability for main page articles. Would it be good practice to have something like Half Past Dead on the main page, just because a determined editor improved the article to featured status? Does anyone else think that, or is there somewhere I can discuss it?? --Macca7174 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's rather sad that so many important and interesting topics and people don't get much attention in terms of good quality editing, while something like this does. All we can do is focus on those important articles.--Svetovid 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Macca7174's question of "... this article does not seem to have been deemed a Good Article at any stage (according to its milestones). Did it therefore go against protocol by going to be an FAC??"
 * GA is not a requirement for FA. It is recommended that a peer review be requested before taking an article to FAC, but there is nothing that states one should first go through GAC. It can be a helpful stepping stone, however, so many editors start there and work up. Lara Love  T / C  05:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for deletion.
What's next on the featured list, Fergalicious? NinjaHydra 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe that this article should be deleted, please feel free to nominate it at AfD in three days, when it's off the Main Page. Keep in mind that What You Waiting For?, Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song), and Luxurious have all survived AfDs, and it's extremely unlikely that this one will be deleted.  Now then Fergalicious is lacking sections about how it was written, the response from music critics (*cough* shameless Gwen Stefani impersonator *cough*), or even credits/personnel.  It's not touching the Main Page anytime soon.  Then again, I suppose I could always try working on that one once Hey Ya! is done...  (Kidding.)  ShadowHalo 03:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this dumb article should be deleted, but I realize there is no chance in hell of that happening. Entries that range from obscure, pisqueak geek "game designers" to shallow, no-talent "entertainers" like this one are typical of the kind of junk that permeates Wikipedia. That is the price we pay for this kind of democracy. Try surfing Wikipedia via the random article feature and see how most of what you get comes fits into that range. Deceglie 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

BUT HEY,ITS GOTTA BE A CLASSIC SONG IF ITS FEATURED ON THE MAIN PAGE...ITS RIGHT NEXT TO "IMAGINE",OR MAYBE ITS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AND INFLUENCIAL,CAUSE IMAGINE WAS NEVER FEATURED AS FAR AS I REMEMBER?!?!?!
 * Articles on the Main Page are there because they are of good quality, not because the subject of the article is important. ShadowHalo 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely the worst song in human history. That is was popular in the first place makes me wish I was a member of another species, but the fact that it is now a FA makes me downright ashamed of this site. --Wasted Sapience 21:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, you mean there are people who don't like "Hollaback Girl"? I would never imagined that, having read some of the other comments on this page.  Featured articles are about the quality of the article, not the quality of the subject.  ShadowHalo 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I want to know is: who spent their precious time improving this article? Honestly, get a hobby or something. Wikipediarul e s 2221  22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is improving this article less worthwhile that anything else on Wikipedia? Stub sorting, RC patrolling, featured articles...it's all got to get done by someone.  ShadowHalo 23:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you been emasculated?Wikipediarul e s 2221 01:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop the mud throwing, please. Might I remind everyone in the conversation that editing is our hobby, and we can spend our precious time improving any article we please. Let's leave personal attacks out, regardless of what we believe should go on the Main Page. --wpktsfs (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

With my last edit on Wikipedia, I'm telling the world that the popularity of this song and its FA status on this are signs that the world is coming to an end. God will not stand by and tolerate such behavior from his creations. I'm reading the Bible, and maybe even the Qu'ran, making peace with our Heavenly Father, who didn't spend 14 billion years creating us for Gwen Stephani to ruin it with this shit (is bananas. Did I spell the correctly?). --Wasted Sapience 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's lovely and all, but please don't use talk pages for anything but discussing the article. ShadowHalo 03:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad lib
I thought [insert noun here]s didn't usually register accounts. Interesting that people actually take time to register for a site that they aren't mentally capable of understanding. For shame. Good job on managing to figure out the edit tab, guys... and you've even mastered four tildes! You're well on your way. Now if you can just grasp the concept of differences in opinion and quality of article > quality of subject, you'll be ready to contribute constructively. Lara Love T / C  23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article
Good job, Drew! Lara Love T / C  05:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Music and structure
This section is unbelievably short and needs to be expanded (I know there isn't a whole lot to say, but there has to be more than one paragraph, see "Smells Like Teen Spirit" [which ain't perfect either] or something of the like). I would recommend expanding information on the instrumentation (I've heard the song and know it features more than just a drum machine) for starters. Also, I'm concerned that some of the structural terminology is incorrect. From listening to the audio sample here and the iTunes sample, and from my own recollection of the song, the section in which Stefani repeats "this is my shit" is not the chorus at all; it is a bridge or some sort of transitional section. A chorus definitely involves singing. I suspect that there is a little more to say about the song musically, but I don't have a recording of it. If someone else wants to take a stab at expanding it (I corrected some terminology and made a couple small additions, but without a recording, there's only so much I can do), I would be happy to oversee the edits and ensure that correct musical jargon and whatnot is being used. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 10:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I normally include a decent section on the subject (see Hey Ya! or What You Waiting For?), but in this case there was no regular sheet music that I could find, only arrangements for an entire band. I've removed the part about the tempo; that information certainly did not come from the AMG review.
 * Music and this song don't agree with each other so there...--Svetovid 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's probably the reason that there was no sheet music released for this, Crash (Gwen Stefani song), or Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song).  There wouldn't be any accompaniment unless people are going to try to make their pianos mimic drum machines.  That's also why it passed FAC; nobody could think of any information that was missing, so the fact that the section was short really wasn't actionable.  ShadowHalo 23:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true; the music really is pretty bare and uninteresting. Nevertheless, the chorus part needs to be corrected, because I have a suspicion that the "this is my shit" section is not the chorus, seeing as it is spoken, not sung, and a chorus is typically sung (even in rap songs, choruses often have a melody, do they not?). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

writing credits
In the first paragraph of the article it says that Gwen and Pharrell wrote the song, but in the info box writing credits are give to Gwen and THE NEPTUNES. Do The Neptunes have a Lennon-McCartney sort of deal? Did Hugo have a hand on writing the song as well? Or is it music he's receiving credit for? - 12.166.233.147 11:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both Neptunes are credited, but no interviews or coverage of the song have mentioned him as one of the songwriters. Most likely it's a Lennon/McCartney thing.  ShadowHalo 12:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem sections
January must have been a slow month over at FAC. I see some problems with two of the sections of this article that call for, IMO, a major re-write by an interested editor. Firstly, the Writing and inspiration section comes off as completely gossipy. Perhaps this is a result of the source material, but you don't see this kind of writing in a featured Beatles article. Second, the Music and structure cites a "sheet music" site that appears to be mostly fan transcriptions. I question the reliability of such a site and would prefer something a bit more academic as a cited source in an encyclopedia. If it can't be found (and I doubt one would for this song) then statements like "...is a moderately fast song in the key of B major." and "The main chord pattern of the song alternates between B major and D sharp minor triads." should be removed until a more reputable analysis can be found. I'm not going to take it to WP:FAR, but these issues should be addressed before someone else does. &mdash;M (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Writing and inspiration is a common thing to have. Take a look at Yesterday (song), a featured Beatles article, which talks about McCartney thinking he was plagiarizing someone's work.  The difference is simply that the lyrics of this song are fodder for a gossip column, mainly a rant about how she's going to take down her opponent (inspired by Courtney Love).  Some of the "gossipy" stuff is really just the fact that she's not...the most eloquent person and uses "like" when she speaks, etc.  You are right about the Music and structure; it's been changed some from what it originally was, and I'll see about cleaning it up once it's off the Main Page.  The source, though, is not a fan transcription; the site is just spammy.  The main issue is simply that there's no sheet music available for "Hollaback Girl", save for an arrangement for an entire marching band.  ShadowHalo 14:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against the inclusion of the Writing section, just the tone. It's not very encyclopedic, and this is likely a result of the sourcing. As for the analysis section, even commercially sold sheet music is a bad source. It's often an arrangement from the original (sometimes transcribed) and is usually in a different key to make it easier to play. Unless the actual score was published, or there was a published scholarly critical analysis of the tune (unlikely even at contemporary music schools) then stating the key in the article is problematic. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't really had problems with commercial sheet music before. I compare the sheet music to the original songs to make sure, and I usually use GNU LilyPond to make a MIDI to be completely sure.  The only time I've seen it transcribed (at least, by the source I use) was with Te Dejo Madrid, and it clearly stated that the music was shifted by one half-step for easier playing.  ShadowHalo 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're talking about arrangements for piano right? They're still arrangements and don't properly represent the composition. A piano arrangement just isn't a reliable source; it's an approximation of the actual composition arranged to be easily playable on the piano (or whatever instrument you've got the sheet music for). Only the published score for the song with the arrangement for all the instruments used would be suitable.


 * I was adding to my earlier comments: The Yesterday article is an excellent example. Compare and contrast the tone in that article with this one. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wish they had included two things: (1) the exact quotation from Courtney Love that instigated this song, and (2) a clear definition/derivation of "Hollaback" //Dudley
 * Are people not reading the article? It definitely includes the exact quotation: "Being famous is just like being in high school. But I'm not interested in being the cheerleader. I'm not interested in being Gwen Stefani. She's the cheerleader, and I'm out in the smoker shed."  As for number two, it states, "a hollaback girl responds to a confrontation with words".  ShadowHalo 23:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the music and structure section, the music itself can be used as a source. It doesn't take a PhD to sit at a piano and find out that the key is B major or that the chord progression is from B major to D sharp minor (I haven't actually done this, because I don't have a recording of the song, although I could use the sample I suppose). This is not analysis of facts; this is just stating the facts. You don't need sheet music to state any of this; the recording suffices.

Also, there definitely is not any published academic work on the song. To be blunt, there's very little there musically. It's not complex enough to warrant any kind of analysis. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article and the reliability of the sources seems fine to me. &mdash; Deckiller 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing and Inspiration
The opening sentence of this section is somewhat misleading: Stefani had worked with The Neptunes during the early stages of writing Love. Angel. Music. Baby.; however, a case of writer's block resulted in reportedly uninspired collaborations.[2]. After reading the source/reference, this sentence does not seem to properly describe what happened and how this song came to be. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Found the Courtney Love comment (or at least one of them) that inspired this song: [quote]Being famous is just like being in high school. But, I'm not interested in being the cheerleader. I'm not interested in being Gwen Stefani. She's the cheerleader, and I'm out in the smoker shed. And plenty of you are out there in the smoker shed too. When it comes to rock 'n' roll, it's just like high school" (From an interview in the August 2004 Seventeen magazine).[/quote] //Dudley

My favorite part of this article on the moronic song
First off,let me tell just this: I truly despise all of you that spent a minute of your time working on this article.Still,this is my favorite part:

"lyrically, this is where Gwen sinks the lowest here, especially on a breakdown where she repeats, 'This shit is bananas/ B-A-N-A-N-A-S!' several times". Eric Greenwood of Drawer B Media called the song "moronic and embarrassingly tuneless. I'd quote the lyrics, but they're so bad, I almost feel sorry for her. A 35-year-old woman singing about pom-poms and 'talking shit' in high school betrays such a delusional self-image that it's hard not to be taken aback."

And to think so one would actualy spend a minute of this ONLY EARTHLY LIFE WE HAVE TO WRITE ABOUT THIS SONG...I think this article should be a stub at most,surely not a featured article.Im not the only one feeling ashamed that I spent days working on important Wikpedia articles,just to see this piece of shit,no-good song article being featured
 * You make it sound like Velten and I are Hitler (sorry, but this discussion was in violation of Godwin's law). Featured articles are about the quality of the article, not the quality of the song, so if there are important Wikipedia articles you've been working on, I recommend you continue working on them so they can be featured.  ShadowHalo 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah,while songs such as Dont stop me now or American idiot have five times less material.What has Wikipedia turned into Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ShadowHalo 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this article. Never mind what all of them say above. 195.46.247.108 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-FAC comments
—Writing section: she is the girl who 'hollas' the chants, not one of the girls who simply 'hollas' them back". Put the period within the quotation marks.

—Music and structure: and — like the majority of pop music — is close-up the punctuation with end-letters

—Reception: "stomping, stripped-back track", put the comma within the quotation marks

"almost exactly like Dizzee Rascal", put the comma within the quotation marks

"lyrically, this is where Gwen sinks the lowest here, especially on a breakdown where she repeats, 'This shit is bananas/ B-A-N-A-N-A-S!' several times". Put the period within the quotation marks.

Brian Griffin states, change to stated

"bananas", "bananas", "broccoli", put the comma within the quotation marks (I think)

—Chart performance: In October 2005 do not wikilink; it’s a broken date.

single debuted June 19, 2005 add on between "debuted" and "June"

It debuted on MTV‘s Total Request Live March 31 insert "on" between "Live" and "March"

"a staple of MTV's TRL". Put the period within the quoted material.

Hello, sorry for bothering y'all. I've been reading the article to have a guide for my future works and it seems I observed some simple errors. Please feel free to contend my reviews; it was neither thoroughly nor professionally reviewed. BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Award
"Hollaback" was one of 2005's most performed song --Efe (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

schools
did you go to st pauls catholic high school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.69.236 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

um i was wondering
should we add the lyrics to the song cause i've noticed that all wiki entries on songs never include the lyrics is that like a rule or something :)The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

no, that would be a copyright violation 76.109.53.71 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Number format
How'd this get to FA status with "The song was listed at #180"? WP:MOS says:
 * Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No." For example:
 * Incorrect: Her album reached #1 in the UK album charts.
 * Correct: Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts.

I generally don't make style changes in FAs, as someone always objects. Chris the speller (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Music video
Could be some explanation of what the Chinese characters on the gym floor mean... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese characters on the gym floor mean 原 "original" and 宿 "lodge for the night" or "old, former". Put together it could mean "Original place/stay" or "Place of origin".

That would fit with the reason Gwen Stefani made this song anyway: To react to Courtney Love's accusation that she's "the cheerleader" of high school (the music business) by saying that maybe she was, but now she has grown up.

SnaggySmooch (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)