Talk:The Boys Are Back in Town

“ He called the song “G.I. Joe is Back.” It was a weird anti-war song. The Vietnam war was over and American troops had been returning home. The song’s melody and chords were good, but the lyrics needed work. Scott Gorman}

BTO

Has anyone ever heard of this song being mis-labeled as by BTO? 76.65.20.250 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It was paired with BTO's "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet" on a British oldies vinyl single, which may explain any mix-ups. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

other rumors

This song came out the same year I entered The Citadel and there was a long standing rumor that song was about the school. There are numerous vague references and "Dinos bar and grill" was a popular cadet hangout for many years. Must have just been coincidental.23.24.109.165 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

G.I. Joe is Back in Town

Originally, this song was called "G.I. Joe is Back in Town" and there are references out there that suggest the song's original lyrical intent. It referred not only to the popular toy line but also referred to all those soldiers returning home from the Vietnam War. I hope someone familiar with the song adds this information in the future. WikiPro1981X (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• The Theory about the Quality Street Gang is more widely reported and accepted these days rather than any of the various yarns about Vietnam (I personally hadn't heard this earlier name claim before though). Keresaspa (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Year end charts

The single was #98 in the 1976 year-end charts in the UK. I've just tried to add this info myself, but as usual the vagaries of wikitables have scuppered my efforts. Would someone with more competence be able to make the needed addition? Thanks. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Removal of 2012 RNC section

@Bretonbanquet: - Greetings! I see you reverted my edit. So let me attempt to justify why I made the edit: While this section is verifiable and reliably sourced, as you pointed out in your edit summary, I don't believe that the use of the song during the 2012 Republican National Convention adds any information of value to this article from a long-term encyclopedic standpoint. It's an occurrence local to a specific point of time for a specific political party in the United States. From my experience, many politicians or pundits (they coincidentally tend to be of the Republican variety) have used songs of major musical artists, who then publicly comment that they object to the use of that song, owing to differences of political viewpoints, etc.. However, nothing further usually comes of it. If it led to an ongoing nationwide conversation about the use of music for political purposes, that would be one thing, but that tends not to be the case.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@WaltCip: Thanks for your measured response, I appreciate it. I understand your point, and if this were an article about the Convention, or the party, I'd agree with you. I think the use of songs and the subsequent objections from the artists would be very minor details in that context. But I think within the relatively narrow context of the song itself, I think reliably sourced information of this type is relevant. I'd go as far as to say almost any reliably sourced information pertaining to the song or its usage on a wider platform would be relevant. I know this looks like "I just don't agree with you," and I apologise for that, but that is my opinion. Perhaps open it up to a RfC if you like? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is an occurrence specific to the United States and involves one political party. So what? A song reaching #1 on the Billboard charts in the United States is specific to the United States and one magazine. In this case, the event in the U.S. garnered press coverage re the song 36 years after its release, across the pond, in The Guardian.

Further, it's two sentences, distilled from a substantially longer piece about the song/event specifically. Were our inclusion substantially longer or the source substantially shorter (or about a broader topic), I might be inclined to agree. As is, songs being used for purposes "out of tune" with the original intent is certainly "a thing" (seeing "Born to Run" as an anthem for New Jersey or Rage Against the Machine being used by the very same machine), it's also a revitalizing influence for older songs. I graded a paper from a student roughly 20 years old pointing to misappropriations of songs nearly twice that age (e.g., "Born in the USA" being used as a nearly nationalistic rallying cry). Most popular music from 3 decades ago gets zero press. This is unusual. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet and SummerPhDv2.0: Thanks for the replies. Not certain I agree with these, but I understand and accept the rationale for keeping this in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

In pop culture

I think their should be section where it’s all of the tv shows, films, etc that used this song because I know theirs a lot of them and it’d be nice to see all of the things this song has appeared in. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guideline on the issue says that in general such uses are trivial unless the use of the song in the TV show/film/play/concert/speech/rally/parade/statue dedication/radio commercial/etc. was (according to reliable sources) significantly impactful to either the show or the song. Perhaps an old song re-enters the charts because of its use in a TV show. Maybe the video for the song generates interest in the film. Otherwise, it's trivial.

Imagine the senseless list of thousands of shows and movies we would have for "Happy Birthday to You". Did you know it was used in an episode of the long-forgotten early 1980s TV show Gimme a Break? No? Did you care? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Is profanity necessary to be encyclopedic?

This article includes a quote containing a profanity which seems jarring in context. Wikipedia:Offensive material says "offensive words ... should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". The article notes that the song is used in Toy Story 2 and mainstream advertising, therefore should editors consider the increased likelihood of children visiting this page and the language they may stumble upon?

If the quote was changed to say "They fell in love with the song and played it incessantly..." this does not appear to less informative, relevant or accurate.

Note that:

• The profanity was removed in Feb 2018 and immediately reverted by @Bretonbanquet: "Wikipedia is not censored" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Boys_Are_Back_in_Town&diff=826201290&oldid=826200796
• The profanity was censored (against Wikipedia policy) in April 2019 and quickly reverted by @SummerPhDv2.0: "As sourced; Wikipedia is not censored" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Boys_Are_Back_in_Town&diff=890841901&oldid=890808303

DarylKayes (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: Due to no objections, I removed the unnecessary profanity eight hours ago. It has not yet been reverted! --DarylKayes (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been away. The guideline you have used also states: "rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline". This is a quote and has to be reproduced verbatim, hence my revert. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If we include the quote on the article, it's necessary that we faithfully reproduce it, curses and all. Per WP:LONGQUOTE, I think the paragraph in question should be rewritten in prose, either omitting the quotes, or significantly shortening it? Something akin to, Scott Gorham expressed surprise at the song's popularity, attributing its unexpected success to two DJs in Louisville, Kentucky who "fell in love with the fucking song and played it incessantly until other stations in the surrounding area picked up on it". RoxySaunders (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against that, so long as the earlier part of the quote (or prose paraphrasing it) was also included. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

And then can we use the opportunity to remove the unnecessary profanity? Such as: ...attributing its unexpected success to two DJs in Louisville, Kentucky who played the song "incessantly until other stations in the surrounding area picked up on it". DarylKayes (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)