Talk:Surfin' Bird

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Meaning of lyrics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Don't you know about the bird?  Everybody knows that the bird is the word!  18:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Rising back into popularity

message: 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)
thread_title:  UK Chart position 2009 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Played on Mario Brothers cartoon show? 

message: 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."Number One is number one" - UK chart commentary April 26, 2009 from Music Week. Accessed April 28, 2009 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Further, in the meantime, please stop restoring it until a source is provided.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ahh.. sources.  I'm happy now.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural references

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Further, in the meantime, please stop restoring it until a source is provided.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ahh.. sources.  I'm happy now.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning the repeated deletion of the "popcult" or "cultural references" section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Family Guy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Luv 2 Luv u Remix 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Edit request from Alliepallywally, 15 December 2010 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Album Track Listing 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Introduction Paragraph. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Ruffled Feathers 

message: 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)
thread_title: Running length

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Surfin' Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pink Flamingos 

message: "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)
thread_title: The Bird is the Word should not redirect to Surfin' Bird

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Composer is wrong