Talk:Surfin' Bird

Covers

Tenpoundhammer deletes just as I post an update and it gets posted in the Notes section - so took it out - but if anyone is restoring the cover section, don't forget to include The Queers on their 1994 Rocket To Russia album

Meaning of lyrics

When the song came out in 1963, the dance "The Bird" was hugely popular. The song lyrics are simply about the huge popularity of the dance called "The Bird". Any other interpretation is much more recent and was clearly not intended by The Trashmen in the 60s. So, the "fact" tag shall stay in place for a reasonable amount of time and then the creative "21st century" interpretation should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish Man (talk • contribs) 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot to sign the above! BAD! --Fish Man 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, 209.214.107.160... Excellent edit! Thanks! Fish Man 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the most tragics in USA music history. Only a group with such name would sing such trash, meaningless, and foolish lyric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.30.248 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't know that the bird is a word. Papa-oom mow mow-papa, oom mowmow...207.210.29.71 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I bet you are one of those "audiophiles" who only hear the errors in a track instead of the music, and who think there is some scientific way to measure what "good" art is, while in reality, "quality" of art is only defined by the amount and confidence of the pathetic losers parroting the view of some asses who are very much sure of themselves. Same as is fashion. I for one, say this is great art, and one of the highest highs of being free and having fun in the history of music! I really rocks the house and has an incredible rhythm and ear-worm qualities. On an unrelated note: Ba-ba-ba bird bird bird, the bird is the word... -- 88.77.129.212 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a section in the article that can reflect upon the fact that the song is ridiculous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.141.50 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rising back into popularity

Surfin' bird is quickly rising back into popularity with the peter griffin episode. I predict in a few weeks it will turn into an internet phenomenom especially if 4chan discovers this. 193.157.242.51 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would this ever, EVER be a meme? People try to force memes all the time by spamming stupid shit. The only things that live are things that are actually funny. I highly doubt enough people are going to think this is worthy of such status simply because it was on Family Guy. No, expect moar desu. Sandwiches99 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you know about the bird? Everybody knows that the bird is the word! 18:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertens21 (talk • contribs)

I'd say it already is a meme! 206.72.25.210 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And I second that! And one of the best too! -- 88.77.129.212 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The family guy section was way to detailed.-this article is about the song and not the one family guy ep.

Way to go, censoring Wikinazi! WRONG! The rest of the article was not big enough! Add more to it! The complete background information set. A sample. An image of the actual record. A section about the phenomenon, and one about how it changed the world, including the influence of the covers... There's tons of stuff to write and add! -- 88.77.129.212 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right it was way to detailed. I changed it, now it is fine. The sentance I have there explains it was made popular again by that episode of family guy. I am one who listened to it back when I was growing up, but I also watch family guy with my kids.

Irviding11 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

UK Chart position 2009

I thought it might be edited by someone looking at the main reference article and it was... that article was an American newspaper looking at the UK I-Tunes chart (when it was at #36) and assuming that was the official chart. It actually entered the official UK chart at #50 (see the Music Week reference).Retro junkie (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Played on Mario Brothers cartoon show?

I swear this song appears in an episode of the old Mario Brotherss cartoon show, the episode with Birdo. Can anyone confirm this? If so, it should be added to the cultural references. (Sorry I can't be more specific, but my memory of the episode is at least ten years old.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.202.201 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It does, I have the first six eps of that show on DVD and that song DOES play on the Birdo ep. 79.72.16.224 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references

I think it was better composed when it looked like that:

• In the 2008 Family Guy episode "I Dream of Jesus", Peter Griffin can't stop singing and dancing to the song. Following the first showing of the episode in the UK in April 2009, "Surfin' Bird" entered the singles chart for the first time (having failed to chart when first released there in 1964), reaching #50. It has also brought almost nine million viewers to hear the song on YouTube.

The way it looks now is more awkward and references to FG on two ocasions. Plus the You Tube phenomenon (considering such an old song) should not be easily dismissed (4 mln views).--96.25.224.164 (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Who decided that Family Guy was not notable in this article? There are countless articles with "Cultural References" in them. This song was the central theme of an entire episode, which makes the Family Guy reference notable. Kjscotte34 (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I came here looking for cultural references, trying to think which 70s kids show used this, but a list of all tv/film references would be great.69.237.149.104 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the repeated deletion of the "popcult" or "cultural references" section

There's a concerted effort to remove the popular culture material from this article, on the grounds that it's not referenced by third-party sources. However, consider:

Scenario 1: I read a book on a particular subject, written by an expert. I take information from this reliable source and insert it into the Wikipedia article on that subject, rewording it so as to not violate copyright. The information, therefore, has been perceived by me by reading the book, synopsized by me, rephrased by me, and inserted by me, with a reference. Anyone who wants to verify the information goes to the source, reads what's there, and checks it against what I have written.

Scenario 2: I watch a film on DVD. I take something that happened in the film and insert it into the Wikipedia article on that film, describing it as accurately as I can. The information, therefore, has been perceived by me, described by me, and inserted by me, with a reference to the film it came from. Anyone who want to verify the information goes to the source, views what's in the film, and checks it against what I have written.

These scenarios are identical. Describing what occurs in a media artifact, such as a DVD, VHS, CD, LP, book or TV series is the functional equivalent of describing what is said in a reliable source, and for these items is no more reliable source for the contents of a media artifact than the media artifact itself. Straight-forward descriptions of the contents of these media artifacts -- their plot, cast list, etc. -- does not require additional sourcing; however, anything that veers from straight-forward description, such as analysis or evaluations, needs to be sourced like any other potentially contentious fact.

There is, therefore, no legitimate reason for this section to be repeatedly deleted from the article, so I ask that it be stopped. If the section growns unwiedly, then certainly it can be pruned on the basis of the importance of the entries, but in this case, with only two item, both straight-forward descriptions, we're nowhere near that territory. Popular culture is a tremendously importance force in our civilization, for better or worse, and we should not ignore it any more than we should allow Wikipedia to become a fansite. The question is one of balance, and that is what we, as editors should look out for. At the moment, the article is not overburdened with popcult content, and the entries are not trivial, so they should be left alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On some level, I think I agree with you. However when dealing with a subject we should be careful not to use original research or sythesis, and, like you said, be mindful of the balance of content so as not to provide undue weight to any given concept. If the subject in question has not been documented by a reliable third party publication then I am afraid we are violating all three. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In the particular case of "Surfin' Bird", I feel that a "Popular Culture" section is particularly relevant. This particular song was not all that big of a hit when it was first released and was regarded, at the time, as a rather "throw away" novelty song. However, it developed a strange cult following that led to particularly frequent use in movies, TV, etc. As such, one of the more "notable" aspects of the song is its pop culture impact. Therefore, a section on its use in pop culture is particularly relevant. Fish Man (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If it has notable impact within the realm of pop culture, then surely some reliable third party publication has documented said impact. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Shall I ask what we should do about the other articles that contain Family Guy references? Carol Alt is one. The spoof that was done of her is mentioned in a sentence in her Wikipedia page. Yet, she didn't provide the voice. That should be deleted as well. If we clean one up, we clean them all up. I'll search for sources of the episode, and while I agree we should stick to policy, we shouldn't be splitting hairs either. The song was the central theme of an entire episode, after all. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for inclusion, especially when said content violates our policies here like WP:SYN and WP:OR. If the content is indeed notable, you should have no trouble at all finding sources. Go find some before edit warring to have your material in again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, in the meantime, please stop restoring it until a source is provided.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been the one that's been adding it back. However, I am going to do it now, with a source. One of the existing sources for another section covers the pop culture section, so I will appropriately site it. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.. sources. I'm happy now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Cultural references have been deleted again from the opinion of just one person. I believe at least the family guy episode should be mentioned with reference to it causing the song to chart in the UK. Alepolo101 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

UK Chart Position 2010 and Christmas Number One Campaign

I would like to add some specific details to the information regarding the UK Campaign to get this song to Christmas Number One campaign. I have unfortunately not gone about this in the appropriate way so far. It was suggested that I put some information on here, and see whether people think it is appropriate for the Wikipedia page? This is what I was going to add:

• In 2010 the song became part of a nationwide campaign in the UK, to get the single to the top of the Christmas Sales Charts. The campaign was originally started in January 2010 . In September 2010, the campaign was dismissed by Guardian Music Journalist Tom Ewing, in favour of the competing campaign for John Cage's composition 4'33 . On the 13th of October 2010, Radio 1 DJ Scott Mills mentioned the campaign on air, during his Drive Time show , and within days numerous Facebook groups were created to support the campaign. By the 26th October 2010, the largest of these groups had attracted over 452,000 followers . A number of websites highlighted the campaign in late October including NME , Digital Spy , Spinner and Unreality Shout . By October 27th 2010 the strength of the campaign caused British Bookmakers William Hill to put 'Surfin' Bird' as the second favourite to reach the Number 1 Spot with odds of 7/2

If there's something here you don't like, please let me know, and hopefully we can discuss before making any changes to the full article--Lisbon lion67 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved this section to the bottom, as that is where new sections go. Not at the top, not in the middle; at the bottom.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

OK, again, wasn't aware thats the way things happened. What do you think of this briefer revision?

• In 2010 the song became part of a nationwide campaign in the UK, to get the single to the top of the Christmas Sales Charts. Started in January 2010 the campaign was helped by a mention by BBC Radio 1 DJ Scott Mills on his live show on 13th October 2010 . A number of media websites reported on the campaign in late October, including NME , as well as a number of British Bookmakers . --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much what references you give at this point in time; I'd say the whole deal becomes notable if and when the campaign is actually successful. That's the point of objection here. Having a facebook-group and getting a brief mention on a radio-channel doesn't really mean much these days. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Same, still isn't small enough either per WP:UNDUE. A large paragraph, as opposed to the single sentence most notable items get, in an article about the song as a whole(not how much it is mentioned in culture) is a violation of the core wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. WP:RECENT also applies here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Success is not a criterion for notability, which is established by significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but success in this case is basically a prerequisite to being in said sources; my point was, before that campaign is success, I won't even bother looking for them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Success is not a requirement for the coverage by sources, as the subject has already been covered. There are reliable sources provided above by Lisbon lion67 and there are two news sources returned on Google News search.[2] I believe that is more than what is required per the notability guideline. I am adding {{reflist}} below so that editors can check the references more easily. --Joshua Issac (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference list

Alright... so we kick out facebook, youtube, and tweets... meaning 2., 3., 5., 6., 7., 13., and 14. Leaves 1. Passing mention (maybe to fill up space) 4. mentioned 8./15. actually about the song/campaign. 9./16. short snippet, but maybe 10./17. (same link) short snippet, but maybe... 11./18. actually about the campaign. 12. irrelevant/unrelated 19. actually about the campaign.

So we're down to three (and a half, maybe). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to basically repeat what Seb said above, but in a sortable table.

Sortable reference table

Reference	Reliable source?	Passing mention?	May mean something?
"Number One is number one" - UK chart commentary April 26, 2009 from Music Week. Accessed April 28, 2009	Yes	Not even mentioned	No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZThquH5t0ow&feature=fvst	No	n/a	No
"First Post on the Original Facebook Page on 17th January 2010".	No	n/a	No
"Guardian Music article discussing Christmas Number 1 one 2010".	Yes	Yes	No
"Scott Mills Tweets about the Campaign".	No	n/a	No
"Youtube video with audio of Scott Mills mentioning the Facebook campaign".	No	n/a	No
"Facebook page of largest of the Campaigns".	No	n/a	No
"Music Magazine NME reports the campaign online".	Yes	No	Yes
"Digital Spy article on campaign".	No(5.2)	No	No
"Spinner.com Article on Campaign".	Maybe	No, but small	Maybe
"Unreality Shout Article on Campaign".	No(1.0)	No	Maybe
"Bookmakers William Hill Odds on Christmas Number One 2010".	No	n/a	No
"First Post on the Original Facebook Page on 17th January 2010".	No	n/a	No
"Scott Mills Tweets about the Campaign".	No	n/a	No
"Music Magazine NME reports the campaign online".	Yes	No	Maybe
"Digital Spy article on campaign".	Same as above	Same as above	Same as above
"Spinner.com Article on Campaign"	Same as above	Same as above	Same as above
"Unreality Shout Article on Campaign".	Same as above	Same as above	Same as above
"Liveoddsandscores.com article on Surfin’ Bird odds".	Will need to be taken to WP:RSN	No	See WP:RSN note

Although, yes, I have reviewed each one myself, it is roughly the same as what Seb has said.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks firstly to Josh for listing the references (I wasn't sure how to do this myself). I'd like to suggest a revised contribution, but before I do can I make a couple of points. 1. I am aware that it is normal to ignore facebook and twitter as references, and I understand that on a normal topic (e.g. a breed of dog, a type of plane, etc) this would be sensible. However, the nature of this campaign is that it is a social media/social networking campaign, and so it is necessary to have some references to social media as a way of accurately describing the origins of the campaign. That is why for the moment I have left the original facebook post in (to verify the date/time of the start of the campaign, which even NME got wrong, by confusing it with the air date of the Family Guy Episode I think)), and additionally to verify the date/time of the mention by Scott Mills. 2. I think in terms of notability the fact that the bookmakers have put this at second favourite shows that the campaign is indeed notable. At the end of the day the bookmakers are the ones who would lose financially if they get their odds wrong, so if they are sitting up and taking notice, that shows that their numbers suggest this has a high chance of succeeding. Let me know if you think these revisions are legitimate?

• In 2010 the song became part of a nationwide campaign in the UK, to get the single to the top of the Christmas Sales Charts. Started in January 2010 the campaign was helped by a mention by BBC Radio 1 DJ Scott Mills on 13th October 2010 . A number of media websites reported on the campaign in late October, including NME as well as a number of British Bookmakers .

--Lisbon lion67 (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please indent your posts when replying to people. That aside, your post does not address our own, where we demonstrate that only a few of your sources may be used for purposes of establishing notability, and most of all, the fact that your bookmaker source doesn't even mention your group.

And again in regards to notability, a single source doing anything is not grounds for it. WP:N says that there must be significant sources to make that demonstration. Three which barely even qualify will not make this section notable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to distinguish between my 'group' and the 'campaign' as whole. The 'campaign' as a whole is a much larger entity than my particular group which started it all off. The campaign has grown, morphed, migrated, moved, whatever you want to call it into something much bigger, an entity all of its own. I'm not here to write about my group, I'm trying to write about the campaign as a whole.

The fact that the bookmaker article does not mention the particular group that started the campaign does not invalidate the fact that the campaign is now an entity of its own, likely to make an impact upon the Sales charts. This article is about the 'campaign' as a whole, not my group. None of the articles referenced mention my group by name (although the earlier Guardian article did quote from it), but this isn't about my group, this is about the campaign at large, which all of the article mention.

In regards to your comments about notability, you mention a 'single source', yet earlier you recognise there are a 'few' sources. A quick google search of "surfin bird christmas" will highlight already 5 news sources that have commented on the campaign as whole. Furthermore, I think the fact that bookmakers are changing their odds shows that the campaign is affecting their betting patterns already, and is therefore notable. Finally, I find it difficult to accept that a campaign with close to half a million followers can be dismissed as 'insignificant' rather than 'notable'--Lisbon lion67 (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does. In fact, what you post is a straight violation of another core policy; no original research. You may not reach your own conclusions about the material in sources, or use several sources to support a conclusion you made, but have not directly said. You cannot argue that 'bookmakers changing their results' is a result of any campaign unless a third party, reliable source comments on it.

To my own words, yes, I do say 'single', and I do stand by that, given the comments I've already made about the other two sources, and I still stand by that; that the NME article is just about the only thing that meets the criteria of the aforementioned policies. Is it reliable? Yes. Is it not a passing mention? Yes. Would it support notability? Yes. The NME article is just about the only source there that could mean notability. The others are a grand 'maybe', as they are blog posts within a source, amongst the other reasons regarding like how small they are.

Lastly, WP:BIGNUMBER is not a valid reason.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we let's see if we can come to some sort of compromise. Let me set out what I think should be put on the main article, and if you could comment on which parts you think need to be revised.

• In 2010 the song became part of a nationwide campaign in the UK, to get the single to the top of the Christmas Sales Charts.
• Started in January 2010 the campaign was helped by a mention by BBC Radio 1 DJ Scott Mills on his live show on 13th October 2010 .
• A number of media websites reported on the campaign in late October, including NME as well as a number of British Bookmakers .--Lisbon lion67 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on those in a bit, but right now...

It seems rather odd that an account that hasn't edited in 2 years would suddenly come to this article and make edits directly referencing your group. Frankly, the edits stink of meat puppetry, a policy in place here that is similar to our policy on canvassing support for whatever cause you have. If you have made any kind of post in your facebook group, I suggest you delete it, now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Have you considered the possibility that an editor (who may or may not be sympathetic to the campaign) saw the article and talk page and decided to add references? Also, if an editor is canvassing, it is sufficient for the user to not canvass in the future, i.e. it is not necessary to remove existing posts (see the guideline on responding to inappropriate canvassing). --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by "May mean something?" in the above table? Thanks. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just about managing to keep up with all the jargon! Obviously you guys are fully familiar with the Wikipedia policies, so I will have to take your word that I may be in breach of them, and try my best to keep in line. The meatpuppetry thing seems to suggest I am colluding with someone else? Am I right? I am not working with anyone else in my contributions. As for the canvassing thing, I am not trying to encourage support, I am trying to record accurately the origin and nature of the campaign as it grows. Does that mean I am violating the policy?

Earlier you said "You cannot argue that 'bookmakers changing their results' is a result of any campaign unless a third party, reliable source comments on it". I have just found a third-party source which has a direct quote from Ladbrokes (another Bookmaker) saying the following "The attempt is being taken seriously by betting giants Ladbrokes who have given the song odds of 3/1. Speaking on behalf of the company, Alex Donohue said: “The Surfin’ Bird Facebook campaign is gaining some serious momentum which we can’t ignore. If it is a success we will be shelling out thousands.”" Would this deal with this point.

Finally could you explain what was meant by "If you have made any kind of post in your facebook group, I suggest you delete it, now.—" I don't understand what this means? What kind of post are you referring to? --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources marked as unreliable above (e.g. the YouTube video) actually come from reliable sources (BBC Radio). That it is reposted on YouTube does not make it unreliable—if there is consensus that YouTube must not be linked, then we can just have the original reference instead i.e., referring the the BBC Radio broadcast and not the YouTube video (see policy on accessibility of sources). Similarly, Scott Mills is well known for his work in the music industry, so a self-published source should be acceptable (Twitter). He has had his work (what he does on the Scott Mills show) published by a reliable third-party publisher (BBC) (see policy on self-published sources). --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It really does depend on the source. As an example, if the BBC youtube item was posted by an account controlled by BBC, it would be reliable, but not otherwise, as media is editable. That's just the way it works. Lisbon, to 'deleting a post now', I mean something made by the group controller that is on the wall, in the info, etc. I have a facebook account as well, and I'm quite aware of what is possible. In regards to canvassing, Josh, it would be prudent to delete such a post, rather then let it remain, as if it remained, it would continue to canvass. To Twitter, it would again have to be confirmed that the user is who they purport themselves to be, again because people can be impersonated, especially on sites like Twitter. I am not in any way, in regards to the past few posts, suggesting that there could be some sort of conspiracy to change the facts. Not at all, I am simply explaining my reasoning, and the reasoning that blogs are usually not referenced, along with Twitter feeds and youtube. I realize this response is quite late, but I've been quite busy with other matters.

Lisbon, you state above you found a source that states exactly what I request; could you please post the source?

It has been requested that I explain my 'maybe' reasoning for the listing of sources. As I noted above, blogs are usually not used as sources, much less sources to establish notability. The blog is under the banner of a real source, but the blog entry isn't an actual article. It's barely even a blog entry; just a pass-along of information.

In regards to the NME article, the spinner article, and others, I'm not quite sure on those; it would be best to take them to the WP:RSN noticeboard, for establishing notability.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all really anal. It's a heavily backed national campaign using modern media. Bet some of you squares who are against it never thought RATM would make Number 1 last year. As for success being a criteria for Wikipedia, since whne has that been the case??? The fact that the campaign gets NO mention on the article is ridiculous and makes Wikipedia look out of date (which is the thing it shouldn't do). Cls14 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Cls14, I agree; I was certainly surprised it wasn't there. More to the point, NME has been declared a reliable source here. So it appears the NME story is enough to justify adding the Christmas Number One Campaign to the article. Mlm42 (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, NME is reliable. However, we need more than one source in terms of notability.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, I disagree. According to WP:N, "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". Unless I'm mistaken, I think you are attempting to limit article content based on the notability guidelines? Of course these guidelines would apply if someone were trying to create the article Christmas Number One Campaign of Surfin' Bird.. but we're talking about inclusion in the current article, so the criteria you are apparently citing doesn't apply. Or maybe there is some other policy or guideline that I'm missing? Mlm42 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC is a reliable source, as is the Guardian. If there is a problem with using YouTube (as the account is not controlled by the BBC), then don't reference YouTube; we can just use the BBC reference with no hyperlink. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the Ladbrokes citation. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think my earlier post was somewhat misunderstood; I wasn't saying "exclude completely" -- I was going against the length and the barrage of "sources" given; if you guys really dug up something better than facebook or twitter, then so be it. Just keep it short; this whole deal already has more in the bullet-point list than in the actual prose. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll conceed on the reliability of the sources presented, but I'll stand firm on the issue of undue weight. This does not mean I currently support the length given to other popular culture trivia already listed in the article; I don't know if it would be possible to make them shorter than they are. Perhaps they just appear large because of my screen size. Either way, we do need to follow WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, actual editing isn't my strong point.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Been following this but not joining in, but how about:

• The song was used as a Christmas number one campaign in the United Kingdom, based on its popularity from its use within Family Guy.[NME ref]

Short, and to the pointless, not promotional? Rehevkor ✉ 16:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, I like that, but it would not be fair to the others here who have been discussing this to implement that without their comment, so while I have given my opinion, I feel we should wait for the others to comment as well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess no one else really cares at all then :P Rehevkor ✉ 23:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not take advantage of all the other references (can be solved by adding all the other RS to the end of the statement). The Bookmakers sources should be reviewed, and if they are reliable, then we should add information on that. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to keep it as simple as possible, but I can try to put together a neutral version using all the reliable sources provided thus far tomorrow. No promises. :P Rehevkor ✉ 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tidied up the comment to include a link to the List of UK Christmas Number Ones, as well as mentioning that the campaign was begun on Facebook. I have put in 3 references (The NME article, the Liveoddsandscores articles, the Ladbrokes article). In its current state I think the comment is concise and to the point. However, should the campaign be successful (i.e. if the song reaches number one at Christmas), I think some of the more precise details I posted originally may become more notable, and the comment may well need expanding. --Lisbon lion67 (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Family Guy

I have added a fact tag to the latter half of the Family Guy section. A quick Google of sources suggested nothing reliable, considering the issue currently, this should really be sourced also. Rehevkor ✉ 05:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Luv 2 Luv u Remix

That is all.

Ps Timb & Magoo, read the lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.209.29 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alliepallywally, 15 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} (added to 'In Popular Culture') - The song was used in a popular viral video campaign led by UK comedian Matt Whistler. source: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/burnleypendlerossendale/8736976.Pendle_comedian_out_to_beat_X_Factor_to_number_one/

Alliepallywally (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: A viral video campaign is not sufficiently important for inclusion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Album Track Listing

If this article is about a song, why is there a track listing for an album of the same name? If the album merits it's own entry the track listing should be recorded there. Gwladys24 (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph.

"It is a combination of two R&B hits by The Rivingtons: "Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow" and "The Bird's the Word". Isn't this essentially a polite way of implying plagiarism? It says on The Rivingtons Wikipedia article they involved their lawyers to obtain a writing credit. I know people may love the song, but I feel something is perhaps been skirted around here. 84.13.101.91 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Ruffled Feathers

The number one hit in Spotify for this song is by this band not mentioned in the cover versions list here. --95.34.149.128 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Running length

4 seconds is a considerable length of time on a single. It should be explained why the Canadian release is four seconds shorter than the US. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Full metal jacket should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:981:3A5E:1:B451:DAB9:2F77:2C25 (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket should be mentioned. Drsruli (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Surfin' Bird. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140827070528/http://www.billboard.com:80/charts/1964-02-29/hot-100 to http://www.billboard.com/charts/1964-02-29/hot-100

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Pink Flamingos

I support the desire to rein in trivia and pop culture references, but if the "Family Guy" reference has been re-instated, shouldn't the "Pink Flamingos" one be as well. When my generation hears that song we don't think of Family Guy, we think of Babs Johnson's birthday party....PurpleChez (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed "lip syncs" to "flexes." It's hilarious to think that the performer is actually "lip syncing" with his prolapsed anus, but the actions of the orifice in no way match the music and likely were never meant to. It appears that, like several sections of the film, the scene was shot without sound, the music being added in post-production. BTW... I recall reading that, nearly fifty years later, John Waters refuses to identify the performer... "for obvious reasons." PurpleChez (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bird is the Word should not redirect to Surfin' Bird

"Surfin' Bird" by The Trashmen is a composite remake. "Bird is the Word" and "Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow" by the Rivingtons were the originals. The original "Bird is the Word" should have its own separate article with appropriate details just like "Papa-Omm-Mow-Mow" does.Vern4760 (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

History

I don't understand what the first paragraph means. Can someone who is knowledgeable have a look at it?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Composer is wrong

The label photos shows that this song ware composed by Steve Wharer. This photos shows the same: https://www.musik-sammler.de/release/the-trashmen-surfin-bird-7-1353404/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)