Talk:Tubthumping

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk from 2008[edit]

This page states that the song was used in an episode of Red Dwarf when in fact it was only used on a dvd extra (Series One "drink" featurette This article references a sampled speech. The speech is only present in the album version of this song, not the single version, which is in fact over a minute shorter (from removing the speech at the beginning and some other trimming). What an awful song. The worst crap of 1997, and there was plenty of it in 1997! =O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.110.194 (talk) 13:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I was really amused when this song was first out to hear all of the chatter about how radical the band was, that they were the biggest anarchists the world had seen since Sacco and Vanzetti, how amazing it was that they'd punked the British PM, etc., yet all the while the song sounded like some drivel from some Scandanavian dance pop band that doesn't actually speak English. "I drink a whiskey drink, I drink a cider drink"??? Whuh??? PurpleChez (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not very surprising though, it's meant to be an amusing reference - they are a UK band, and anarchists in the UK (sorry, couldn't resist) are notorious hard drinkers. Centrepull (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"In late 90s, the band received an offer of $1.5 million dollars from Nike to use the song in a World Cup advertisement.[2] According to the band it took about "thirty seconds to say no."[2]"

But it is on the world cup 98 - Video game. Should be mentioned, I think

Oh, it is mentioned already in the references section. Sorry, nevermind then. --82.83.201.132 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, the involvement with an EA video game - they are the equivalent of Nike in the gaming industry, big and shiny looking, but totally corporate marketeers underneath, complete with questionable labour practices. Centrepull (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand no one noticing that Ted quoted this song in a Sally Forth strip a while back, but the SERIES FINALE of Home Improvement? Shame on the Wikipedia community. ps. Don't say that I should add it because I'm not sure if a) the Sally Forth thing is notable and b) it's actually the series finale and not one of the episodes leading up to it. --Pizzadinosaur (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tubthumping" a UK term?[edit]

I'm from the UK, and I've never heard a politician referred to as a "tubthumper". Am I in the minority? Mixsynth (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tubthumping is to aggressively attract attention to a political cause. Fits in with the working class/anarchistic themes often explored in the band's music. --Laryaghat (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the quotations at tubthumping. -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I get knocked down"[edit]

An anon has asked for a citation that the song is informally known as "I get knocked down." I will continue to look for a proper citation, but a google search on "I get knocked down" shows a multitude of web sites with the title "Tubthumping ('I get knocked down')", which would support the claim generally.

The key reason I put it in the lead is that I get knocked down redirects here and, by rules, it should be somewhere in the lead and bolded. If there is other acceptable wording that attains this goal, I'm interested in hearing it. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing in the "rules" that says all redirects need to exist as bolded in the Lede, and that would be really dumb if it were true. I Get No Doubt, I get knocked down, Tub Thumping, tub tumping, Tub-thumping and Tubthumping (Remix) all redirect, but it'd be foolish to put them all in bold in the Lede. Now, if there's a citation that says that "I get knocked down" is a commonly-used alternative name, that's one thing, but absent that, there's no "rule", policy guideline essay or otherwise, that suggests it must appear in the lede. Achowat (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the wording of dab guidelines to be stronger on the topic. The intent of the guideline is to give the reader some understanding of why they reached the page - to orient them. The alternative spellings would not be needed. That said, if it is decided this is not useful here, I'm not just blindly following the rules - it can go. But do consider the person who has not heard/seen the word Tubthmping looking for the song article. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did a non-wikipedia related interview with a footballing magazine yesterday and "Tubthumping" came up, and I needed both "I get knocked down" and "Chumbawumba" to get the interviewer to understand what I meant. I think it should be kept. Achowat (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music video[edit]

Could be something about the music video, though it's not too striking (a miscellany of clubbing and karaoke scenes). AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject[edit]

Regarding this edit, the justification given is:

On the grounds that... that is not the title. Chumbawamba's usage trumps anything the Grauniad says!

All usage I've seen refers to the song as "Tubthumping (I Get Knocked Down)", including notably the source we claim to be citing as proof that this usage is incorrect. The source just says they don't want the song being used at all by the organization Ukip. They raise no issue with the way the title of the song is used.--Louiedog (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through all the scans of tracklistings I can find, for both the single and album. I can find no instance of Tubthumping having a subtitle at all, apart from mix names. It seems to me that what we have in the lead is a statement that the song is sometimes incorrectly referred to by the lyric, illustrated with an appropriate citation to an example of such an incorrect usage. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Its not saying that is the name or that is officially cataloged that way, just that's what it is often called - plus, since "I get knocked down" is forwarded here, it helps people coming from that link understand what happened (and note the above section on this topic --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I'm content to remove that the usage is "incorrect" - for which we have no source - and add a footnote remarking what Walnuts go kapow has found in his/her personal research.--Louiedog (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the "prominent lyric", of course, it's the two lines from the lyrics, acting as a "kind of sub-title", printed on the pictorial single cover (see main image). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I even bother? -- Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You get knocked down? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on making the very first sentence of the article just plain wrong, maybe we could at least have a hatnote explaining that the first sentence is just plain wrong? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

@DanWarpp:, if you don't want to source dance-rock in the infobox, you must write in the body of the article that "Tubthumping" is a dance-rock song and put the source next to that sentence. Otherwise it will be an unsourced genre. In the page of the Infobox musical artist there's written "Genres that are sourced in the article itself do not require a source in the infobox": in this case maybe there is the source, but next to other informations. Blueberry72 (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MTV source for the genre was cited in the infobox, I merely moved it to the "Writing and composition" section. DanWarpp (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should have written also the information in the "Writing and composition" section. Blueberry72 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due and undue weight[edit]

@Synthwave.94: please do not misunderstand the policy, WP:NPOV is required at all times and is one of the five WP:PILLARS; you stating that there is a case where it is not needed is concerning. I replaced the content with WP:HIDDEN text of the critical reception section for now. QuestFour (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placing non-NPOV content inside a hidden tag does not de-enforce the policy. QuestFour (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Rolling Stone placed the song in its list of the "20 Most Annoying Songs" is perfectly neutral. It doesn't matter that the title of the list is not neutral in itself, considering Rolling Stone is a reliable source as per WP:A/S. Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having an entire section comprise of that sentence is not. The reliability of the source is extraneous here. WP:PROPORTION states that an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. QuestFour (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest merging it to the 'Commercial Performance' section and renaming it to something like 'Reception' --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would more likely than not impetus the chances that a NPOV critical reception section would not be formed, as there would be little to no motive from editors to do so if its all mushed together in a section of that size. Additionally, it's not recommended per WP:MOS. Most importantly, having the critical reception content of the article to consist of just that regardless of placing is still non-NPOV. QuestFour (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion has been stale for more than 3 weeks, I will go ahead and remove the non-NPOV content from the hidden tag per the above. QuestFour (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restored with, this time, two different lists from Rolling Stone. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Synthwave, inserting a one hit wonder mention does not make things any more neutral and WP:PROPORTION still applies. Please understand that no one wants to omit the reception section or any particular "list", the section header is in the article just kept under a hidden tag for now until a sizable, neutral section is formed. There is no need to be pertinacious about this. QuestFour (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infos are perfectly neutral. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The neutrality of the reception section comprising solely of text calling the song annoying has been discussed above. The term one-hit-wonder is, by definition, also negative, hence the final text of the two lists is not neutral per the policies stated. Placing the reception header under a hidden tag for the meantime is a compromise, as again, this can be done while avoiding edit warring. QuestFour (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources don't require to be neutral (see the list of music considered the worst or In the Court of the Crimson King, described by Robert Christgau as "ersatz shit"). As you can see here, "Tubthumping" was listed under several year-end lists as one of the "single of the year", which means it was well received in 1997. I'm going to find the original sources and add them in the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mislabeled[edit]

The section labeled "Writing and Composition" isn't about that at all. It doesn't tell who does the spoken material at the start of the song or where the text came from. It's really a set of descriptions of the music. 100.15.127.199 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article says virtually nothing about the song itself (as contrasted with the circumstances of its composition, its success and reception, etc.). It doesn't mention that it's about being too drunk to stand up, that it quotes "Danny Boy", that it consists of several recurring themes that are repeated in polyphony at the end of the song—nothing but its length, key, and genre. It's like if the article on, say, cheetahs didn't say that they're carnivores, that they turn fast, or that they have spots. AJD (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Line to song[edit]

I think it would be nice to reference that the opening line of this song is from the film "Brassed Off"

reminiscence[edit]

I remember this song being played on Washington D.C. stations after 911 as defiance against terrorism. 100.15.127.199 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tubthumping&oldid=1195542252"