Talk:Whip My Hair

Needs to be reworked

This article has some serious style issues. Let me start with some guidance, I hope it is received in the spirit that is intended. The point of including citations is to demonstrate a point. Once that has been done, perhaps a couple of times, then it is time to move on. The entire "critical reception" section keeps quoting people who basically say the same thing, that this song is kid friendly but has broad appeal. That sentence says it all. After that it is repeatitive, and that's why it seems like an advertisement or PR piece to some people. That entire section should be reduced to just that one that sentence, and then maybe 3-5 citations attached at the end. The rest is just fluff that doens't further the article. I started to do this, but I don't want to eliminate anything the original author thought was a new idea...I'm not sure any of it is though.. please fix this.

Otherwise, this article veers wildly off topic and does not have a scholarly tone. As an example - Rihanna is mentioned 22 times even though she has nothing to do with this song. Jay-Z is mentioned 11 times. A passing reference to Jay-Z signing Willow smith after this song is fine (assuming this song inspired that decision or is in some way related) and maybe one reference to this video being released the same day as Rihanna's video is more than sufficient. The picture of Rihanna is completely unnecessary. The rest belongs on the Willow smith page. On the other hand there is no mention of how this song appeared in the game Dance Central 2. That's at least relevant to the song itself. Remember this article is supposed to be fundamentally about this specific song. All facts should relate to this song, effects of this song, context surrounding this song etc. I don't care if other articles are poorly written, just because there are precidents in wikipedia doesn't make this acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaBjork (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mark Page for Deletion

I'm not sure why anything about this song exists outside of Willow Smith's own page. There are bigger acts out there that have had their song pages deleted. This song is nothing of note in its own, and should be deleted.74.108.138.217 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The applicable guideline here is WP:NSONG. A casual glance at the article shows it passes. If you disagree, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD, though you'd do well to look at that guideline first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Issues

A lot of the song's background information should be moved to Willow Smith as info on signing to Roc Nation is not as relevant and has almost certainly been used to bulk out the article -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well a reason for inclusion is that how the leak spawned the coverage of the record deal, which doesn't really go in to depth neither. Candyo32 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a small error concerning who wrote "Whip My Hair". Ronald Jackson aka "Jukebox" Wrote and produced "Whip My Hair" not Willow Smith. Also would not consider Jukebox a rookie as he has been producing professionally for Will Smith and Overbrook Ent. since 2005. Here are some references [1] [2] [3] Also, would like to know what your reference was for the writers credit on "Whip My Hair" 04:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darulah923 (talk • contribs)

 Done thanks for proving sources concerning a name but I didn't seem to find in them that he wrote the song. Candyo32 03:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some controversy as to whether or not Willow Smith should be referred to as "Willow". The Willow Smith wiki page lists her recording name as "Willow Smith", but some sources as well as album art seem to disagree and list her as just "Willow." (Skoot13 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

Single release

Amazon has this single up with a release date of September 10. The cover looks pretty basic and it says remix, but the song is the version that everyone is hearing. Fixer23 (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is an interesting situation. First of all the sample doesn't even sound remixed, and it's kind of weird cover art, etc. The label says idj. Idk but it's rumored to be going on iTunes next week. Candyo32 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been removed, must have been a mistake by IDJ. Fixer23 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are no critics who dislike this song for any number of reasons. Personal bias aside, the entire article is littered with praises for Willow Smith while there are no quotes or references to even a single bad review. User:StorminMormon (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no negative reviews for this single, but feel free to add some if you find. Not all of them are extremely positive, of some I believe call it generic. But the neutrality cannot be disputed if no negative reviews are found. Candyo32 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The whole page reads like an advertisement. The fact that Smith received attention for her outfits is not relevant to the song, since the song isn't about her outfits. The tone everywhere is overly gushing: "the song set media outlets abuzz." "The song's accompanying music video, features a colorful concept in which Smith dons several hairstyles which act as paintbrushes to enliven a school." Just watch the video, you could equally interpret it as disturbing whereby whipping her hair she causes chaos. Going to put the advert tag on top. Philosophistry (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Philosophistry, while your good faith additions at encyclopedi-fying the article are certainly appreciated, a huge edit and revamp of this kind needs to be discussed. There is no redundancy in varying positive praise if it comes from different sources, which it certainly does in this case. I agree that the removal of information from the lead paragraph goes against the guidelines laid forth at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), and I agree that if no negative criticism is to be found, neutrality cannot technically be "disputed". Take a look at a song by Madonna ft. Justin Timberlake & Timbaland—the featured article "4 Minutes". In its critical reception section, nearly all sentences are positive reviews and praises by an assortment of reliable sources. If there are any concerns you feel should be addressed in particular, feel free to do so on this page, and I'm sure Candyo32 et alii would be more than happy to cooperate. As for now, I do not believe the article "reads like an advert" as much as many articles could. Yves (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is seriously outrageous. Do you people go visit GA or FA articles such as Baby (Justin Bieber song), Just Dance, or Fight For This Love?

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead must cover all aspects of the article. There is a music video section and we aren't going to talk about its concept or synoposis in the lead?
• It is simply ludicrous to remove some positive reviews because they are "redundant." Negative reviews cannot just appear in thin air.
• Oh, and this is the killer right here - removing all mentions by MTV because "because they have a vested interest in its success."
• About the outfits. The purpose of the background section in part, being her debut single, is Smith's career pre-"Whip My Hair," and that's what she gained attention for before the single.
• Abuzz - filled with talk or excitement. Isn't that what happened? Candyo32 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your response is "It's written that way because that's what happened". That's pure circular reasoning, and is close to irrelevant. Ftc08 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Candy and think you guys are not being fair and simply disruptive! Candy agreed and has NO probelm with you adding negative info into the article, but its not his fault there is none. Instead of coming here and starting an argument, you guys should stop being lazy and GO FIND negative reviews and add them yourselves!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all StorminMormon is breaking the rules regarding his username. He/she's signature must link to either his user page or his user talk page. That needs to be addressed. Secondly just because the reviews in this article are positive does not mean that the there must be negative reviews out there ... that is assuming WP:Original research. Thirdly if you're going to say MTV has a vested interest in the success of "Whip My Hair" you're gonna need to be specific cus that's a bold claim to make without any evidence. Critics across the industry have been genuinly impressed with Willow's ability and debut as an artist. Please edit with accordinance to our guidelines and if you have criticisms of the way an article is written then bring them up here rather than attempt wide-reaching blunt edged changes. I second what Nathan says... just because good reviews exist that doesn't make them redundent... instead of removing them go and fine negative ones. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of negative reviews, it's the fact that the entire article is written to glorify the song in every way possible. It's a song. This is written like a press release, or even worse, an advertisement. A rewrite is seriously needed. Ftc08 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Stating facts is not "glorifying" a song. If you find any negative reception, feel free to add it. Candyo32 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree--this article needs a major rewrite, or at least some serious trimming. I don't mean to offend any editors here, so please take my criticism as constructive. It's not the lack of negative reviews that make the article's neutrality questionable, it's the overall wordiness and the choice of words/phrasing. I wouldn't go as far to say it reads like an advertisement, but I'd say it reads more like an article in a music column than an encyclopedia article. The writing style is more of an issue than the content. It's well written, but the language is too colorful. We need to work on conveying an impartial tone and cutting down on the puffery and weasel words. Also see: WP:BETTER#Information_style_and_tone (RE: dispassionate tone) and WP:NPOV#Characterizing_opinions_of_people's_work

I'll make some edits as I have time. I'll try to change one thing at a time and be specific in my edit summaries so any objections can be discussed without major reverts. Feel free to bring up any objections here or to my talk page for discussion. But please, if you're not going to start a discussion, at least consider a compromising edit before a revert...I'm sure we'd all like to avoid a potential edit war. Once again, I hope I haven't offended any editors here, so please don't take any of this the wrong way. OzW (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for attempting to clarify in your edit summaries. However, once you compare this work to GA and FA music articles such as 4 Minutes (Madonna song), Baby (Justin Bieber song), and Diva (Beyoncé Knowles song) you can see how it follows rightfully in those footsteps. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by "wordiness" I'm referring to the way some statements are phrased, not the length of the article or amount of information. I have no problem with the content itself. Those articles you linked are great examples, especially if you're looking at the diffs from when they were promoted to GA/FA. Comparing them to this article, I can see the similarities in terms of content, so it I'm glad to see there's less work to be done than I'd anticipated. I still have issues with the tone of the article, but those should be easy fixes--just changes in phrasing. Work's been unexpectedly busy for me this week, so I haven't had a chance to make any edits yet, but I should have some time this weekend. In the meantime, here's an example of what I mean: "Smith garnered media attention for her flamboyant and outrageous outfits"--This is presented and sourced as a fact, but something being "outrageous" is an opinion (no matter how many share it) and completely subjective (in other words, "outrageous" is a peacock term). These need to be cut out or rephrased, e.g., something like "Smith garnered media attention for her outfits, deemed 'flamboyant' and 'outrageous' by XX magazine" would be a better way to phrase this, since it attributes the opinion to someone specific. There's also a few weasel words scattered about, but those are also easily fixed with proper attribution. I've actually seen weasel words in GA and FA articles...they always seem to subtly creep in, since they're hard to notice until someone points them out. If we can fix these, it should even out the tone without cutting any actual content, and I think it'd be pretty close to GA or FA quality then. OzW (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Had some time to clean up Background section. It seems a lot of the text is unsupported by the references given, so this won't be so easy after all. Need sources for the info I tagged if we're going to keep them in. Can we agree to trim the Jay-Z quotes? That many quotes from one person is excessive, and they're about the artist's background, not the song's. Much of that would fit better at Willow Smith. Not saying we should cut that info out completely, just condense it. Also, who is Alfredo Flores and why is he notable enough to be mentioned? OzW (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the Jay-Z quote can be trimmed a bit, but enough to get the jist of her signing, and at least the Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder comparison. I'll try to find a source for the Rihanna style influence. But I thought this source [4] world cite Rihanna comparison and media outlet notes, as the column records current Internet trends. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 20:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the bits about the signing are important, and I think the Stevie Wonder/MJ comparison is notable. The backstory on how they met would fit better on the artist's page, and the quotes of praise can be trimmed or maybe consolidated and paraphrased. I just threw up the {cn} tags as placeholders for what wasn't sourced or wasn't supported by the reference in whatever sentence I was editing. I'm sure we already have sources for most of those things cited in other sentences though, probably in the same section. That source does work for the Rihanna comparison so I'll fix it now. It doesn't work for the other sentence though...it only mentions the reactions of Twitter users (presumably fans and the general public), so that's separate from blogs and media outlets, even though their reactions were basically the same. Also need to cite that it was leaked (as opposed to released) and more exact dates, but I'll go through some of the references now and see which ones can be reused for all of those. OzW (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I didn't even realize that article was already cited in the same sentence. Clearly I need to work on my tab juggling skills. OzW (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

cultural impact

can a song that hasn't been released have cultural impact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.87.67 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Yves (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can a president who hasn't taken office sign laws?Ftc08 (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting...but is it notable to be included in the article?

Willow was the subject of her dad's song, "Willow is a Player" from his Born to Reign album and now she is creating music herself.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rwhitley91, 6 November 2010

{{subst:edit semi-protected}}

Digital download is coming out in the UK on the 21st November CD Single is coming out in the UK on the 22nd November

Not the other way round

Rwhitley91 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done: thanks. Yves (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel Dancehall should be included into whip my hair. ``realwords101`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realwords101 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was describing the real inflence.--Realwords101 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whip My Hair Remix

Can you please take out the part about Nicki Minaj made a remix to this song. She confirmed that it was just an old verse that someone put on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.242.11 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say that Minaj recorded vocals for an official remix. It just says a "remix was made featuring vocals" from Minaj. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 02:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So? A lot of songs have remixes like that I just don't think its notable to put on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.242.11 (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cuz it's fake Cand. It's from guest vocals on another song. --Cprice1000talk2me 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that it was fake. The article doesn't say it wasn't fake. However, this remix is notable because it was covered by several media outlets (will add more later) that thought it was the official remix. All the article says its that a "remix was made." Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I need glasses. :P Fixed! --Cprice1000talk2me 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Candy's Reversion 2/8/11

I am writing in response to Candyo32's reversion of my edits of last night. The justification for her wholesale revision was as follows "Major issues with overhall just because there is a lack of negative reviews does not mean not to include positive.". I have several issues with this.

Number one, I personally have no problem with including positive OR negative reviews. Whatever best illuminates the critical response--good, bad, and/or neutral. I do have an issue however with the excessive enumerations of reviews in nearly every section of the article. If there was an overwhelming abundance of negative reviews (or even an endless cataloging of ANY reviews), I would have the same response. This is not a promotional article, a press release, an extensive cataloguing of reviews (good or bad), or a magazine article. In an encyclopedic article, one expects a general summary of the critical and popular response, with perhaps one or two quotes to highlight or exemplify the tone or reaction. There is no cause-- indeed there is a need to NOT have-- an endless hagiographical litany of media quotes.

Second, I must address the suggestion that "just because there is a lack of negative reviews does not mean not to include positive." This statement is false both in its premise and in its conclusion. It is not at all difficult to find negative reviews of this song, both from the public as well as professional critics. I expect that whomever did the research and supplied the near-endless volume of positive reviews must have discovered them, but decided not to include them for whatever reason. I know Willow's father has. The conclusion too is lacking-- there is no lack of positive reviews cited even in my tightened version. But I will insist that there is certainly no place for value-judgement "reviews" in sections that have nothing to do with critical response, and the article was littered with this.

In summarily reverting my edits wholesale, Candyo32 also removed reference to two negative reviews that came from notable sources, both citing the song as one of the worst of 2010. As it happens, I personally like this song. But the article must be even-handed in acknowledging that the reviews were mixed and not place undo weight on any particular POV. If Candyo32 is sincere in her regard for including the "lack" of negative reviews, not to worry-- I found some without difficulty, and they must be acknowledged in the critical reception section of the article.

This brings me to the most serious issue with Candy032's revision-- the outright reversion of 19 edits in one go. As there were many, many edits improving grammar, tightening of verbage, removal of irrelevant biographical asides, focusing clarity, enforcing adherence to topic, removing redundancies and hyperbole, etc., one would expect these edits would be evaluated individually. I request that Candyo32 do this in future.

Finally, I wish to point out that simply citing a media source that is in some way connected with the article topic is NOT sufficient justification for its inclusion in the article. Such citations must be relevant, representative, concise, purposeful, and connected in some way with the section heading. It must also serve an illustrative or informative purpose. This article contained many many instances of the same thing being said again and again-- such as the endless quoted comparisons between Smith and Rhianna. If such a comparison has been made, say so ONCE and maybe give an example or two, and that's it. Similarly, an section about the music video should be concise-- there is no need in an encyclopedia to quote the director saying how wonderful the artist is-- unless it serves to highlight or exemplify something very specific. Publicity-style quotations may be appropriate for a magazine article, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is not a neutrality question in my mind. It is a question of what is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Similarly, the poorly-written synopsis was long, difficult to read, and mired in detail irrelevant to the lay reader.

Thank you, Candyo32 for reading this and for your contributions thusfar. I look forward to the improvements to this article and will continue to follow it closely. --Replysixty (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support the removal. Content such as "she's incredibly talented and has an amazing personality, so I’m confident she’ll kill it" is WP:CRYSTAL / overly promotional and adds nothing to a readers understanding of the topic. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose all of this. This section is developed per featured and good article criteria, similar to 4 Minutes (Madonna song), Baby (Justin Bieber song), Telephone (song), and more. How is it WP:CRYSTAL? The director was talking about rehearsing for the video, which is relevant to the background information for the section. It is in no way promotional, it is just the director's perspective on the video. The WP:CRYSTAL-ness aspect is completely bogus, I must say. Even if the director said the video would be the best of all time, that wouldn't be WP:CRYSTAL, because it is opinionated, not trying to predict the future. Candyo32 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"I am confident that she will kill it". The personally involved director is anticipating future performance of his client and presenting it in glowing terms. How can that possibly be legitimate encyclopedia content? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Its the directors perspective/comments on the video... Candyo32 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not commenting on the video but upon his future employers predicted performance. Its not as if prior to the event he is going to say on record "I am just doing this for the cash. The song is horrible and filming a video with a teenager is going to be hell." Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think you are making much sense on this. You're pulling out irrelevant guidelines. WP:CRYSTAL? It is just his perspective on how the production of the video is going. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From CRYSTAL "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising " The director as an involved party making predictions about how great his future star will be is not an appropriate source, tis advertising. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

By what stretch of logic is the "directors perspective/comments on the video..." or "perspective on how the production of the video is going" in ANY way notable? The fact that a dance video had rehearsals is obvious and non-notable. If a dance-video included spontaneous choreography made up on the spot, say, that MIGHT be notable. A director saying the star is going to "kill it" is of course not encyclopedic. --Replysixty (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we not just remove "so I’m confident she’ll kill it" and leave it at that? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No. It is nowhere near enough cutting. This article was clogged with spam. Pulling that one sentence was just a minor gesture towards the major work that was needed. --Replysixty (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede that, but the user in question removed over half of the content in the music video section. Candyo32 22:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I restored my edits to the article. Over half the content in the music video section was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Replysixty (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Woof. I've already stated my opinions in the neutrality discussion above. I support trimming some excess quotes and rewriting to remove peacock terms, but deleting large chunks of the article is not a way to improve it. If you feel something is "poorly written," the solution is to rewrite it, not delete it. OzW (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The article was poorly written, which accounts for my condensation, rephrasing, and clarifications. However, there was also, to a stunning degree, peacock terms, loaded words, off-topic digressions, overload of quotations, a lack of focus and adherence to the subject at hand, and the same information being repeated and again in only slightly different ways. And this is leaving the "neutrality" issue aside. So yes, deleting large chunks of the article is a way to improve it, as my edits have demonstrated. I invite any administrator or neutral party who has not edited or seen this article previously to make a comparison. I will do so formally if necessary. I hope it does not come to that. --Replysixty (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously your edits have NOT clearly demonstrated an improvement, as you have multiple users reverting your edits. It's BOLD, revert, discuss, not BOLD, revert, revert, revert, revert. Starting an edit war is not a constructive way to improve an article. I'm sure nobody disagrees with 100% of your edits, and your efforts aren't being dismissed, but when a user makes large, controversial changes to an article without discussion, the appropriate response is to revert the page and allow for discussion. At the very least, Candy has demonstrated willingness to discuss and work towards a compromise. Repeatedly restoring your edits under question demonstrates a refusal to work collaboratively. Until you're willing to cease edit warring and start discussing (rather than arguing), you're preventing any progress from being made here. Feel free to invite an admin to weigh in, if Legolas hasn't done so already, but don't be surprised if that results in administrative action taken against you, as others have already warned you. Also, be aware of the 3-revert rule, as you're one revert away from an edit block. OzW (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I applaud the way you handled the discussion before, pointing out particularities, and I had thought we settled. I do realize the article can be NPOV-y at times, but it is not because of the information that is presented. Like you said, maybe re-worded, but not removed. Right now it seems as if users are trying to water this article down to a sentence per section because an eleven year old sung it. Candyo32 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Less is more. Brevity is a virtue. There is absolutely no need for an article about a song to constantly remind the reader that there are similarities to another singer more than one time. There is no need for more than one or two quotes to represent a particular critical view, which can be described in general and then highlighted. The flood of quotes is inappropriate. "Cultural Impact" as a topic heading is probably over the top as well. There is nothing notable or particular to this song as opposed to any other in any of the director's comments about the video. The suggestion that I have some bias against the age of the singer is as ludicrous as it is offensive. As I have said, I happen to enjoy this song. I didn't know much about it though, and came to find the article in the first place because I wanted to know more about it. Instead of finding clear, concise information, however, I found a tiny amount of helpful stuff drowned in a swamp of poorly-written garbage, which-- you're welcome-- I spent a few hours cleaning up. And, not that it matters, but if you should happen to think the previous incarnation of this article was doing Ms. Smith any favors, I profoundly disagree with you. People such as myself who come to this article want to learn more about the song itself, not be slapped in the face by a tidal wave of disorganized, irrelevant clippings lifted straight from a LexisNexis search. I don't care how many other articles you compare this one to or have a vested interest in-- other articles on Wikipedia may suck as well. As it happens I came upon this one, and this is the one I fixed. Now you may better understand my motivation. I can only speculate as to why one would remove all negative reviews (or insist they do not exist) and support the Spamathon that was in there previously. But in the spirit of Wikipedia, I must assume you are acting in good faith as well-- anything else does the readership a great disservice. I look forward to the article continuing to improve, and will work to ensure that it does. --Replysixty (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Warning — This is a warning for all concerned in this discussion. Either achieve a consensus regarding the changes to the article (whatever they may be), else stop edit warring and removing content. Next time time will be administrative actions. You all are seriously destroying the collaborative environment here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything close to a collaborative environment. Reading above, I see a history of valid, common-sense objections going back several months being dismissed out of hand by the same one or two editors. The opinions expressed by "you all" represents a consensus, and the editors who are edit warring do harm to the spirit of collaboration as well as the article itself. Again, I ask you kindly to please stop the obstruction, the bizarre accusations of poor faith, and recognize that the concerns voiced here are real and point to serious and glaring flaws in the article with respect to bias, clarity, notability, undue weight, tone, and style. The article is poorly executed, but it will get better. Quashing improvements now will only be temporary. Ultimately, Wikipedia wins. --Replysixty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, but you'd have to be under brain surgery to think this compares to this Candyo32 14:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot say that coming upon either version is one that I would actually want to look at and read. And under the "music" section for instance the song apparently is R&B-hip-hop dance-pop crunk funk disco drum-heavy "propulsive" "futuristic" -- leaving me even more confused than before I came to the article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? A user with common sense could infer from the section that it is a drum-heavy R&B/hip-hop song with a futuristic, ecletic compostion, which derives from many genres including crunk, dance-pop, funk, and disco. How hard? Candyo32 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL por favor. Discuss the content, not contributors. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Who did I mention? I just meant how a typical user would view it. Candyo32 23:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Like Candy said, the user is trying to water it down. Brevity might be a plus, but a lot of information is taken out and the prose is not nearly as easy to read. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Why doesn't Replysixty list each individual issue... (if you have to list quote by quote from top-to-bottom please do so). Then each individual bit can be argued upon separately. At the moment there is back and forth tussling over this and that not being appropriate. Either make specific suggestions about content needing to be removed or do not contribute to the discussion further. This applies to all users involved. Either be constructive and review the article listing the discrepancies or forever hold your peace. If you have to create Talk:Whip My Hair/neutrality review. There's no rules against such things, and it would be seen as a bold resolution. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But it has been days and the user has failed to follow back up on their massive concerns. Candyo32 04:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been busy. Do not fear. I will be back --Replysixty (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia waits for no one...please resolve!--mikomango (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NAACP nomination

Whip My Hair was nominated for Outstanding Music Video at the 2011 NAACP Image Awards, [5]. I wasn't entirly sure where this should go (I assumed the video reception, but you may want a separate awards section), so I thought I'd let someone who knows what they're doing put it in. :) - JuneGloom Talk 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Only Time Is Tonight" by DJ Earworm

"In 2011, Internet mash-up artist DJ Earworm included "Whip My Hair" in the mash-up "The Only Time Is Tonight", which also included Enrique Iglesias' "Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You)", Chris Brown's "Yeah 3x", and four other songs. The mash-up was created to promote the YouTube app for Android."

Please add these words to "Cultural Impact"! 76.127.187.71 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: A quick google search for mashups of Whip My Hair turned up eight different videos on the first page of results alone. What makes this one more notable than the others to include it in the article? --ElHef (Meep?) 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)