Talk:America, Fuck Yeah

Untitled

I'm pretty sure it's actually "kiss our butts" not "lick our butt" Brjatlick 29 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)

I just checked the soundtrack, and it's definitely "lick my butt and suck on my balls". I've changed the article accordingly.

Rusty Humphries Show Theme

The song is also a direct copy of the opening theme bumper music for the Rusty Humphries show, based out of San Francisco on KNEW 910 which follows The Michael Savage Show at 7:00 P.M., M-F PST.

I reverted this edit because there was no source and it seemed doubtful. Indeed, it seems more likely to me that the copying went in the other direction... Paulymer5 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We have audio!

The one essential thing that was missing from the article has been remedied. I have just uploaded a sound sample of the song. ^_^

-- Mvent2 10:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the song mentioned Columbine, and I changed "big tits" to "fake tits" Cowami, Worshipper of Qeueue 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• It seems that internet listings of the lyrics of the song are split between whether or not it it says "Columbine" or "Popeye." Listening to the song myself, I initially thought it was Columbine. I'm leaning towards Popeye after a few more listens, but it's hard to tell for sure. Aplomado ^talk 08:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Movie's website says Popeye. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning?

Should this have some sort of warning label on it? You know, like the Parental warning on certain cds? CompIsMyRx 13:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article has "Fuck" in it... that's kind of a built-in warning in and of itself, no? bd2412 T 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. And as BD2412 says, the title is a bit of a giveaway. —Ben FrantzDale 02:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment from article

Moved this comment by User:Mkelly1993 from the article to the talk page, where it belongs:

Juvenile, envious, hypocritical, America-hating bigots like to pretend this song makes a complete mockery of everything and anything US (e.g., "Taco Bell makes fun of the US' 'lack of original culture'"--whatever that means). Anyone who has the ability to think critically beyond their counterproductive dogma can see it's a hilarious but semi-serious take on the fact that the United States, for all its faults, is about the only country in the world that has the courage and wherewithal to confront violent tyrants and fascists--even if it requires violence in return. Maybe enough people throughout the rest of the free world will wake up and get with the program some day so that the US won't have to keep carrying the burden of being the world's only responsible 'parent'. Imagine your world under Taliban hegemony, take a listen to this song, then and ask yourself who exactly it is you're rooting for.

Perhaps this poster has not seen the movie, wherein American forces annoy everyone else in the world by carelessly destroying the Eiffel Tower, the Pyramids, and engaging in various stereotypical stock character behaviors? bd2412 T 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this comment again, this time posted under an IP - it is substantially the same as the one above:

Juvenile, envious, hypocritical, America-hating bigots like to pretend this song makes a complete mockery of everything and anything US (e.g., "Taco Bell makes fun of the US' 'lack of original culture'"--whatever that means). Anyone who has the ability to think critically beyond their counterproductive dogma can see it's a hilarious but semi-serious take on the fact that the United States, for all its faults, is about the only country in the world that has the courage and wherewithal to confront violent tyrants and fascists--even if it requires violence in return. Maybe enough people throughout the rest of the free world will wake up and get with the program some day so that the US won't have to keep carrying the burden of being the world's only responsible 'parent'. Imagine your world under Taliban hegemony, take a listen to this song, then and ask yourself who exactly it is you're rooting for.

What would Matt & Trey think of your so-called “encyclopedia” entry?

Please reserve commentary to the talk page. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

More Commentary from User MKelly1993 moved from article:

Here's my commentary: What does "Lack of original culture" mean (or much of the rest of your entry)? Is this a valid encyclopedia entry? If so, by all means, replace my message. If not, what is it doing here?

Before writing this entry for the very serious topic of discussing "America, Fuck Yeah", did you consult the authors of the song? If so, did they agree with your "intellectual analysis" of their song? If not, why are you replacing my "commentary" with your commentary and then directing me to use the "commentary" page?

I don't like people who parade under the facade of intellectualism to promote primitive bigotry. Is your "encyclopedia entry" nothing more than a screed against the United States of America? Unlike the song "America, Fuck Yeah", it seems to be little more than that. Until I get the sense that you're actually interested in fact over slanted op/ed articles, why should I respect the so-called rules for posting "commentary" under one designated section, while you monopolize the official "encyclopedia" area for your ridiculous and arrogant (not to mention bigoted) commentary?

If this area is reserved for fact-based entries, please point to me what facts reside in your last paragraph (let alone the rest of your article).

Please reserve commentary for the talk page. Thank you. Cabiria 07:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Cabiria,

Perhaps this poster has not seen the movie, wherein the rest of the world (including FAG) align themelves with assholes whose only purpose in life is to shit over everything, while ignoring the arrogant, pompous dicks who not only fuck pussies but also said assholes. Anyone else see the movie? "We're dicks." Readily admitted. But the rest of the world are pussies, who'd rather let assholes shit all over everything that get fucked by dicks. It's a tough choice, but really--look at those countries that have aligned themselves with the US, and look at those who haven't. Whose citizens are better off? Isn't this the point of the movie? Why does no one want to admit this? Seriously--has anyone contacted Matt and Trey to get their perspective on what they produced and what we're discussing here?

In all seriousness, I appreciate your patience with me. But similarly, in all serious, wtf are you thinking with your article? Are you a teenager or something?

I must note that my article keeps getting replaced, without any response to my questions. This only encourages me.

First of all, thank you for moving all commentary to this page, instead of in the article. It makes everything much easier! Secondly, please refrain from personal attacks. You might consider toning down your language when approaching others here. We try to keep it friendly and polite! I did not write this article-I was merely protecting it from obvious commentary in the wrong spot. If you feel the article has clear bias (a topic which many of us struggle with) then please be bold and attempt to write a better, more objective article about this subject. Thanks so much, and good luck. (Don't forget to sign your comments on these pages with the 4 tildes so we can keep the conversation straight!) Cabiria 08:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mkelly1993 08:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Four tildes here--hope I'm doing this right. My tone will be reflective of the article I'm reviewing. So long as it's objective, I'll remain so; where it's insulting and ignorant, I have difficulty not responding in kind. That said, I'm definitely ignorant of how things work in this forum, so I apologize for the personal attacks on you, seeing now that you weren't the one personally writing the article. For whomever authored it, however, my commentary still stands. Again, Cabiria, I appreciate your patience with me. And thanks for removing the bigoted garbage at the end of that article.

I actually added it back in, but I can see how it might be troublesome under Wikipedia's guidelines of no original research. However, I prefer to edit and recent change patrol, so I'll let those (like you) who wish to duke it out over article information have at it. Good luck, and check your talk pages- I think another user has left you a good introduction to some of the guidelines we have here, especially the information on neutral point of view. These guidelines can be confusing, but I'm sure you will do fine. Best of luck! Cabiria 08:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mkelly1993 08:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)You seriously think the other two content-governing policies don't present a bit of trouble as well? "At once, the list mocks American...ignorance,...lack of original culture,...attention span", etc. Verifiable? Unbiased? What about "in a display of stereotypical American pompousness" mentioned earlier in the article? What would be said about an article that said something like, "In a display of stereotypical Muslim proclivity towards violence"? Would that be unbiased? Verifiable? I don’t think I’m doing too well with the confusing guidelines that ensure the objectivity of this online encyclopedia.

I don't mean to be combative; just disappointed with the direction this resource (Wikipedia) has taken.

Hi. It's customary to sign posts at the end. With respect to you point about stereotypes, that's exactly right when addressed by a parody. If we were to say that the 9/11 attacks were a "display of stereotypical Muslim proclivity towards violence", that would be biased because that is a real-life event; if we were to say that the actions of Muslims in this movie (or in, e.g. True Lies) were a "display of stereotypical Muslim proclivity towards violence", that would be an accurate statement about the portrayal. There is a stereotype, and the portrayal invokes it. It may be an unintentional invokation, but it is an objective observation that this movie portrays Americans as using excessive amounts of force to accomplish their goals, while being oblivious or insensitive to the resulting damage and offense. Similarly, the film portrays a group of Americans protesting against Team America, culminating in a fat, drunken American (Michael Moore) conducting a suicide bombing of the Team America headquarters, while still another group of Americans (the FAG members) are easily deceived into forwarding the plans of the chief evildoer. In short, whether the authors intended it or not, the film does lampoon America. The song works in the same vein - it is played in conjunction with the team setting out to engage in the excessive activities portrayed in the film, and lists things which are absurd if posited as points in which we take national pride (slavery, porno, valium, fake tits, wax lips, immigrants), which calls into question the seriousness of other points such as Taco Bell, Wal-Mart, The Gap, etc. Perhaps we should both search for sources that support our respective interpretations. bd2412 T 16:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty apparent that the Bed Bath and Beyond part of the song has nothing to do with attention span and everything to do with it being a less "manly" store, hence the lack of enthusiasm at that part.JPeetey 11:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's more of a satire of overly patriotic movie songs, not the United States itself... perhaps some policies, the statement is POV. Youknowthatoneguy 10:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

Stupid

I would characterise this article as stupid. Directionless lists? Unimportant topic? A whole article which could be much better served by a direct link to the content? Wikipedia forever. JoshuaRodman 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it unimportant, but I don't understand how it's like Randy Newman's I Love L.A.. I fail to see how countless amounts of people think Newman is making fun of Los Angels simply because he mentions the homeless in one line. Yeah, it's humorous given the rest of the song, but it doesn't suddenly make the song anti-Los Angeles.--Freepablo 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This song sounds nothing at all like "I Love L.A." It's sort of in the ballpark of "Danger Zone," although I think there are far better prototypes of this type of song that elude me. If I think of any, I'll post.--Angelino, 11/9/09

Minor Update

Changed "It satirically glorifies the "American way of life" that Team America fights to defend, including Wal-Mart, the NFL, breast implants, and Valium." to read "It glorifies a satirized "American way of life" that Team America fights to defend." ...I believe this is clearer, as the previous sentence could be read as asserting that valium (et al) is actually a part of the "American way of life". The partial listing was also redundant as it's included later in the article, so I left it out. Zombie81 04:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When the trivia listing had been removed the previous edit was reverted to include the partial listing, but left the phrasing as it previously was. Readjusted the phrasing to be less insulting (and less POV), but kept the partial listing as the exhaustive listing isn't present. Zombie81 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

An anonymous user deleted the trivia section. I've saved the details here, for inclusion into the article (provided sources can be found):

• A variation of the song where obscenities are not present is played during the Rusty Humphries conservative talk show program in the United States, replacing "America, Fuck-yeah" with "Rusty - Hum-phries" or "Rusty, hell-yeah".

• This song was also used as the opening act to Ted Nugent's 2006 concerts.

• Recently a moderator of Bullshido.net made an a capella version of the song as an unofficial "theme song" for the site, replacing "America" with "Bullshido" and the American corporations list with a list of things good and bad in martial arts with varying degrees of "FUCK YEAH" after them.

-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics

Note that only snippets of the lyrics should be included, per WP:SONG#LYRICS, as they are copyrighted, so including the entire text falls under WP:COPYVIO. I reverted a version that included the entire set, to avoid a copyvio showdown. Arakunem 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  Then they should be removed completely. The description included in said "snippet" sounds very stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.227.113 (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

I removed the lyrics but only noticed this discussion aferwards. Anyway, long story short, if anyone sees mondern day lyrics (i.e that would be still covered by copyright law) partially (in snippets of complete choruses or verses) or in full, the lyrics should be removed then and there, no discussion necessary unless in those rare circumstances. When WP:SONG#LYRICS says snippets, it means a lyric or two quoted from the song to show the relevent themes of the song. The entire verse is not exactly a snippet, it's a copvio which is why I removed it. But the lyrics site also used as a reference in the article looks like it could also be in violation of the artist's own copyright which I will now also remove per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. AngelOfSadness talk 16:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sushi

Please don't get into a revert war over that. Personally, I think the fact that they mentioned Sushi in the song is an ironic jab at the perceived hubris that the whole movie pokes fun at. So it's not in the song incorrectly, its probably in there more deliberately than other items are... Arakunem^Talk 16:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article used to list practically everything that was mentioned in the song, and was then trimmed down to the version that was here before the sushi addition. Are we going to add porno, sportsmanship and books in again? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It could, theoretically. The original was trimmed because it was a word-for-word transcription of the lyrics, which is a copyright issue. A prose description and analysis of the full lyric set is fine, if anyone wants to go that far. As I suggested, I think the Sushi addition was particularly appropriate as it is pokes fun at the mentality that the whole movie attacks. I think the "books" addition is appropriate as well, since it garners no enthusiastic "fuck yeah" that other things did, further suggesting that the gung-ho mentality has no place for sprtsmanship or books. Arakunem^Talk 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article misses the whole point of the song

The creators of the movie intended it to be the other kind of parody we are used to: the usual parody makes fun of Americans and our president, but this is supposed show an aura of "we're the best" in a funny way. That is why the song plays before the team kills a couple of terrorists, even though they in the process destroy the louvre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.56.20 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Things attributed to America in the song

I didn't know if this was worthy of putting on the page, so I'm putting it here. If people like it someone can move it over to the page. This is a list of every item mentioned in the song, and whether or not it was actually an American invention:

McDonald's - True.

Wal-Mart - True.

The Gap - True.

Baseball - True. While progenitor games similar to baseball were invented in England, Baseball itself is an American invention

The NFL - True.

Rock N' Roll - True.

The Internet - Arguably true. ARPA was invented by the US.

Slavery - False. Slavery's first known mention is in the code of Hammurabi, circa 1760 BC

Starbucks - True.

Disneyworld - True.

Porno - False. Pornography in photographic form followed shortly after the advent of Photography in France. If you consider art or sculpture to ever hold the distinction of being pornography, then you have to go again back the the ancient Babylonians.

Valium - False. A brand name for the drug Diazepam, Valium was first marketed by a Swiss company.

Reeboks - False. Reebok is a subsidiary of Adidas, a German company.

Fake Tits - False. The first breast implant procedure was performed by Austrian national Vincenz Czerny in a German hospital.

Sushi - False. Japan.

Taco Bell - True.

Rodeos - False. Invented in Mexico based on rodeo-like cattle rancing competetions in Spain.

Bed, Bath and Beyond - True.

Liberty - False. A vague concept that was never "invented". The concept of "Liberty" as a political movement was championed by the French in 1789. The US didn't use the term as a political one until long after the US revolution.

White Slips - It is unclear what the singers are referring to here.

The Alamo - False. The Alamo is in the modern-day US, but at the time of it's famous battle, it was disputed territory being fought over between Mexico and the Republic of Texas. Thus, it was not on US soil by anyone's definition at the time.

Band-aids - True.

Las Vegas - True. Think again.70.160.99.120 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy

Christmas - False. Winter festivals were prevalent all over the world. The earliest reference to Christmas itself was from a Roman manuscript, indicating the tradition of calling the winter festival "Christmas" originated in ancient Rome.

Immigrants - False. The first time a human wandered from one nation to another was when immigration was invented.

Popeye's - True.

Democrats - In reference to the American political party, true.

Republicans - In reference to the American political party, true.

Sportsmanship - False. Invented whenever sport was invented.

Books - False. The earliest known writing comes from ancient Mesopotamia, around 4,000 BC.

This kind of misses the point. The things in the song are there because they are part of American culture, whether they originated natively or were borrowed. Americans didn't invent slavery but slavery is a huge part of American history. Americans didn't invent sushi but, at least where I live, you can't go two blocks without seeing a sushi joint. Et cetera. Mbarbier (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's not "white slips," it's "wax lips" which makes slightly more sense. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Youtube Video

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

Don't know the story behind that, but it was linked to the most popular video on youtube. Might want to fix or remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.72.185 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to fix as linking to Youtube videos (where the video was not uploaded by an official account) would be linking to a copyright violation and that's not allowed here so it's been removed AngelOfSadness talk 19:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Parker & Stone did an entire episode of South Park dedicated to the idea that artists shouldn't care if people are share their work, and that they should just be happy that people like it at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.112 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• They're not the ones who had it removed from youtube. That's Viacom. Though, it doesn't matter anyway as linking to youtube videos on wikipedia isn't allowed.--Swellman (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• In that they join a long line of artists, including for instance Michael Moore and Penn and Teller, who have expressed a sentiment that they do not mind people sharing their work, but that work is not owned by them. Instead it is owned by corporations, who very much care and disagree with the original content creators over what should be allowed. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I am merging this to the article about the film since it was never released as a single, well for purely that reason. Donnie Park (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)