Talk:Hoobastank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Opening paragraph[edit]

Let's put them in scope of the rest of the music business. They had one top 40 crossover hit with "The Reason" and it's the only song that bears mentioning, admist mention of their continued success with the modern rock market. But don't list those lukewarm songs that only went top 40 US modern rock!

What I did:

Hoobastank (also colloquially referred to as "Hooba" or "The Stank") is a rock band best known for their crossover hit "The Reason" (2004) and by their continued succces in the modern rock market.


Criticism[edit]

I removed the criticism section as it contained almost no verifiable information and was not neutral. Terms like 'many people say' or 'many think' are indicative of inappropriate information for an encyclopedia article. It leads to biased phrases such as 'Many people say Hoobastank is a better band and far more popular than the Beatles' or 'Some say Hoobastank is actually a group of ill-tempered dingos disguised as musicians'. Unless there is a source for such statements that can be quoted and the information is relevant to the band's overall history, it should be left out.

Also, Sontra is absolutely right about the term 'pre-career'. You cannot have a pre-career after the band has been formed and begun performing. This was changed to early career.


Pre-Career[edit]

The term "Pre-Career" isn't accurate here. The entire second paragraph speaks of their career. "Pre-Fame" perhaps.

Sontra

Born to Lead[edit]

Was Born to Lead not the second single after If I Were You? Inside of You was released about a month later, and still doesn't have a video. I think the Inside of You single should be replaced with Born to Lead. its a better song anyway.

Discography[edit]

How sure are we about the Muffins demo tape in 1997 and the Target live EP of 2002. Allmusic.com does not list either record on their discography [1].

Seaeagle04

Although I do agree that releases should be verified, don't always take Allmusic's word as gospel, they do make mistakes from time to time- for one, they also don't list They Sure Don't Make Basketball Shorts Like They Used on their discography despite the fact we're all quite sure it exists.Mouseclicker


The Target EP definitely exists, I have it in my shelf. It might have been promo only since on the back it advertises their self titled album, but it is an actual album, so there's a yes on that. The Muffins demo tape - you never really know, but if it really is a demo tape, I don't think it should be listed as an album, I think an album is something that at least used to be available for purchase to everyone at some point


Hoobastank's discography is getting pretty big, so I think it should be split into a separate article. Gligoran —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hoobustank[edit]

Should it be mentioned that the original spelling of the band's name was Hoobustank, with a u, rather than Hoobastank, with an a? Also, I think it's noteworthy that there was a major shift in sound between the heavily funk inspired (with a dash of ska) They Sure Don't Make Basketball Shorts Like They Used To and the largely post-grunge self-titled album.

It could, but it is not the biggest deal. Shake 3000 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fan fallout[edit]

I think it should be menitoned that a lot of their (hoobustank) fans were lost after the release of the self titled Hoobastank album. As many felt they sold out themselves and the sax player for commercial sucess.


i think you're on crack


No, this is a valid assessment. While it is never possible to prove an act is a "sell-out" (unless the band specifically mentions it, like Kiss), one can attempt to correlate the timing of the change in sound with the acquisition of a recording deal while controlling for other variables.

Definitely. Also coming out with a self-titled album as your third album instead of your debut is pretty lame as well.

the REAL meaning of hoobastank[edit]

With my friends, the word "hoobastank" means slut or ho.  :)


Speaking of the "real" meaning, after a free show in the late 1990s, I personally asked the sax player what the name meant and he told me that it was the way a phrase developed between the members in reference to flatulence. Originally, he said, it was "whose butt stank?" in reference to the person who farted, but when said quickly, it started to sound like "hoobustank." Does anyone think I should mention this? I can't corroborate the details since it was a personal conversation and there is no way to verify it as fact. I suppose it could be cited as a rumor or something similar...thoughts?

I would say no, as like you say, this is rumor and can't be cited or verified. Marc Hudson 08:35, 7 November 2006 (CST)

I think it's worth mentioning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.155.190.157 (talk) 19:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, this is funny information. Shake 3000 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification from Hesse[edit]

I interviewed Hesse last week and he added some clarification about the creation of the band, which I've added with a reference. Also, I changed the Yahoo Launchcast links to be Footnotes and added a Footnotes section as it seems more appropriate and in-line with Wikipedia tradition.

Marc Hudson 08:34, 7 November 2006 (CST)

Upcoming Album[edit]

I heard somewhere that they were working on a new album due out by the end of the year or perhaps early next year. Their website and the article don't say anything about it. I would like to know if they are or not. Sherlock32 22:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are working on a new album but there are no confirmed title or release date. Rashempashem 11:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says a release date within a couple weeks, wouldn't they need time to make them? Shake 3000 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Changes[edit]

I replaced the picture with a more updated one and add a reference to the only statement that didn't have one in the article, now it's no longer lacking sources. I also mentioned the statement Dougg made for MTV News and added a bunch of other stuff. Rashempashem 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For(N)ever section release date updated[edit]

I updated the For(N)ever 2008-present section release date citing the official website. Dreammaker182 17:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Twitter: HoobastankBand is not Hoobastank[edit]

The account that is doing the shock-site bait-and-switching is not, I repeat, not Hoobastank. This is Hoobastank's real Twitter; they even had the lead singer hold a sign up stating this, as seen here.

I had added this information to the article, but it was deleted by a user without a name, stating the reason for it's deletion being something about it being unsourced. It could be the fact that Twitter is momentarily down, but Twitpic is not, and the picture verification is clearly visible as of 09:23 PM EST, June 18, 2009.

Do we seriously need more proof than that to show that this is not the work of Hoobastank? --ToyoWolf (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Semi-lock for the page[edit]

Due to recent vandalism of the page by IP Address users (taking accurate information down, bait-and-switching to Photoshopped images and saying they're accurate), I propose a semi-lock for the Hoobastank page, at least for the time being, until this all blows over. --ToyoWolf (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info in Lead section[edit]

I'm thinking of removing the stuff about twitter and shock sites from the lead (but not the main text) based upon WP:LEAD, though I wanted to get other users input. Do editors here think this is a "notable controversy"?--Rayc (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think so, only a blog is really reporting it. It's not lead paragraph worthy. Sherlock32 (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable enough to be in the lead Wood Thrush (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the band even posted an official statement about it --68.44.113.16 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither twitter page has been officially verified by Twitter[edit]

As twitter's verification system is the only official way to tell, it is premature (and dangerous) to make assumptions. I've reverted parts of the article to the side that has the brunt of the evidence. I don't know anything about this punk band one way or another, but it's clear that there is, at this point, MORE evidence that this is a Hooba-prank than not. Of course, a verification from twitter or a similar definitive repudiation in the public media would be enough to end this sorry chapter once and for all. 74.72.196.226 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the official Hoobastank website www.hoobastank.com, their is a Twitter update thing right on the main page and the posts match up with the ones on Hoobastank not "Hoobastank Band". So to me Hoobastank looks more like the real deal to me - the overall look of the page is more "official" too. There is also the possibility that both are real and they are just messing with us but no evidence currently suggests this to me. Sherlock32 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, in my opinion, this looks like a genuine Hoobaprank, if you'll pardon my play on words. I've worked in the industry and trust me, if you were going to pull a publicity stunt of this magnitude you would add a little plausible deniability in case things went wrong. In my opinion this turned out more unpopular than anticipated and our boys are trying to distance themselves from it now. As for the post above me by user "Sherlock32", I applaud his "Holmesian" analysis but I would like to remind him, and everyone, that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. I encourage everyone to post their conjecture here on the discussion page, but I agree that we should postpone editing any more "theories" into the article itself until Twitter's official verification process has completed. Wood Thrush (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that an allegation like this would require a secondary reliable source, particularly due to the BLP issues involved. I see that the text has now been removed. where there any non-twitter, blog or first party (www.hoobastank.com) sources on that? Rayc (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally zero chance that this can be included on their main page. No third-party reliable sources at all. How this was not removed sooner is beyond me. Svernon19 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This event prompted official responses from Hoobastank on their main website http://www.hoobastank.com/news/default.aspx?nid=4226&cmnt=1, I believe it should be included --68.44.113.16 (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is pretty simple. Besides being wildly POV, the section lacks reliable sources. Think about it -- if it's a huge controversy, why is THE ONLY SOURCE from the band's own website? This needs to be represented with reliable third-party sources. That's pretty much the end of the story. From WP:BLOP, "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"
I hate reporting people for stupid stuff like this, but it's a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies, so I'll do it if I have to. Svernon19 (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S Vernon. I'm not sure what you meant by BLOP (Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a page for it, unless you meant Los Blops ;) ). I simply heard about the Tweeting incident and came to check it out on Wikipedia, only to find it in the middle of the edit war. I assume that there are others visiting the page for the same reason, so is it not better to leave it up until we reach some sort of concensus? It seems like real progress was being made by Sherlock32 and Wood Thrush in figuring out which account(s) should be listed, and your posts on the talk page make you seem like you're reacting a bit rashly. Again, not trying to make anyone upset by this, just trying to keep the page up-to-date with recent events in the Hoobaverse.66.57.7.17 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 69.225.251.134 and reverts[edit]

This user has made edits to this page that I consider disruptive; thus I have reverted them, but the user didn't agree and reverted again. Since similar edits have been made to a number of other articles, I am discussing the issue at User talk:69.225.251.134; I say this in case anyone is wondering whether any discussion about it is going on at all. --LjL (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other talk is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Format of "See also" section -lysdexia 02:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That is specifically about the issue with using tables rather than columns/leaving-them-alone for "See also" lists, though, while I don't think that's the primary issue with regards to this article. --LjL (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New picture?[edit]

Does anyone perhaps have a recent picture of the band? As the current one on the article is from 2006, when Josh Moreau was the bassist, but since then, he's left and was replaced by David Amezcua, who left and was replaced by Jesse Charland, who is the current bassist.

MightyJordan (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Members biography?[edit]

Is need Biruxx (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hoobastank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hoobastank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hoobastank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hoobastank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoobastank being largely nu-metal?[edit]

Hoobastank were never that largely of being nu-metal. They were always a post-grunge/alternative rock band with some pop rock hooks. Hoobastank had released about 5-6 albums, most of their albums have nothing to do with nu-metal. Some nu-metal fan decided to include nu metal because he loves the genre but that doesn't mean that every single rock band of the early 2000s were nu-metal. He added sources of Hoobastank being nu metal but those sources are old and only refers to some sounds of the Self titled debut album. It used to include nu-metal but for the early stuff which is true, a few sounds of the self titled album had some nu-metal but it was mostly post-grunge/alternative rock. It never was fully nu-metal. I am just trying to point that out.( Strangeguy91 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

Some of the genres in the infobox are a little messy?[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to point out that some of the genres in this band's article are a little messy. For one, it says Ska Punk and Funk Metal and Hoobastank never done that when they signed to Island Records. We are talking about Hoobastank in here, not Hoobustank which it was when they were originally a Funk Metal and Ska Punk band. Once, Hoobastank signed to Island Records, they wanted to change their name to apply to the new music that they were recording and planning to do, they were about to change their name completely but decided that it would be best just to replace the U with an A because people pronounce their name wrong at the time. They changed to a post-grunge/alternative rock style of music. Now, it says nu metal in the article infobox and I think that is unfair because I only hear the nu metal elements in their self titled album. Hoobastank released a lot of albums after the self titled and most of it has nothing to do with nu metal at all. The majority of the self titled is just post-grunge and alternative rock, the nu metal label should only be shown as early in the infobox. The funk metal and ska punk should be removed from the infobox but still be kept in the musical style because the musical style is more specific than the infobox. I also think that adding pop rock and alternative metal should be more appropriate in the infobox because Hoobastank seemed to mixed their post-grunge sound with alternative metal and pop rock stuff. ( Jasonlife (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation, funny how your use of ( ) to encase your signature, just like the blocked account in the section above. Probably just a cawinkadink :P - FlightTime (open channel) 19:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hoobastank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muffins release - EP or album[edit]

Are there any sources, from third parties or the band, calling the Muffins release an EP or a full-album? I haven't been able to find any sources in a brief search, which makes me think it probably shouldn't even have its own article, but regardless, we still need to know how to classify it for the band's discography section and discography article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]