Talk:Everyday People

Influence
Should there be any mention of the "Scooby-doobie-doo and doo" refrain being the possible genesis of the Animated series with a very similar name? Sochwa (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. But it was used as far back as 'Strangers In The Night'. But given the song came out the same time as the cartoon, you have to wonder if they got the name from the song. Macshill (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It has (almost) always been my understanding that "Scooby-doobie-doo" was coined by Frank Sinatra as a scat during his rendition of 'Strangers In The Night' in 1966; it was taken up by Sly Stone for this song; and finally used as the name of the animated cartoon dog. Also, I think more should be said about "Different strokes for different strokes". My understanding is that the phrase began as a usage of the word 'strokes' as defined by Dr. Thomas A. Harris in his book popularizing Transactional Analysis, "I'm OK, You're OK", published in 1967. The phrase itself became commonly used in the African-American community, was picked up by Stone for this song, and finally became the title of the sitcom. But I'm not 100% sure about the order of two of those events. Could it be that the phrase was coined by Stone and then became used in the African-American community as a result? Hccrle (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Frank sinatra sings "dooby doobie doo" he doesnt sing "scooby".--190.230.73.19 (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm intrigued with the fact that this song is from 1968-69, the height of the peace, love, hippie movement. But listening to it today in 2016, it's relavance is more profound, and seems to be painting our societies predicament of distrust, anti-socialism, prejudice, and out right hatred. It saddens me so, since I am a child of 1961, still working on having/keeping peace and love in both my heart and my life. RedfoxinictKS (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It's "Doo-dee doo-bee doo. Doo-doo-doo dee dah. Dah-dah dah-dah dah yee ahyeeyahyah". I don't know if I heard any other scatting in the tune. —Source: ~2:20 into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTOeRwIUnG0&t=140s Misty MH (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And this link has the song with an additional 9 to 10 seconds added at the end where he scats a little more. Again at about 2:20 —Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd_3EkGr0-4&t=140s Misty MH (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Rough consensus that this is the primary topic. Cúchullain t/ c 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

– In the past 30 days this song has 2,828 views to a combined 453 for the other two articles. The song is far more notable than both the film and novel. Therefore, it is the primary topic. Hoops gza (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyday People (song) → Everyday People
 * Everyday People → Everyday People (disambiguation)
 * Neutral - Not opposing given that this is a much better known song. But still feel that the removal of bracket disambiguation makes more natural sense when its bios - a human being is not always definable as John Smith (a what?) than songs/films/books. Here Everyday People (song) 1968, Everyday People (film) 2004, Everyday People (novel) 2001, Everyday People Cartoons. Given that the film is TV/HBO and the song has had many covers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would like to add that the song went to #1 on the pop charts, and was #145 on Rolling Stone's greatest songs of all time.Hoops gza (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are you aware that the disambiguator of "(song)" is still kept as a redirect to the page in the event that the page is moved? So there is really nothing to worry about as far as people searching for "(song)".  The extra disambiguation of "(song)" is still there for people who are searching.  The idea of moving the page is to prevent people from having to navigate another page (the disambiguation page) when most of them are obviously trying to find this page.  In other words, a lot of people will just type in the song name without any disambiguation and this prevents them from getting to the appropriate page immediately.  This applies to all of the recent RMs I've made.  I apologize if you already understood all of this.Hoops gza (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but after the move when someone types "Everyday People" on Google what will come up will be "Everday People" no longer "Everyday People (song)" - which will be fine 90% of the time in this case. But not clearly in several of the other RMs. Alternatively if they're searching in the internal top right hand box then redirects don't show - at least I'm doing it now and typing [Everyday Peop... ] produces (song) (film) (cartoon) (novel), but doesn't produce Everyday People (disambiguation) as an option since it is only a redirect. Once this is moved that will resolve as Everyday People (disambiguation) will be an article, but "Everyday people (song)" will disappear, which in many cases isn't super-helpful if you were looking for a film/book and had no idea the song existed. Of course this applies across the board and is an issue of balance. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But then, of course that is why we use page views as a metric in determining primary topics. We put disambiguation notes at the tops of the pages. I still support moving this particular page.Hoops gza (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The picture of society
I am intrigued with the fact that the song was released during the height of the hippie movement. The time of flower children and anti-war protest. The era of free love, 1968-69. But the song speaks of us, people, not being able to get along and non-acceptance among us. I think it is a song before it's time. Today's society of distrust, anti-socialism, prejudice, and out right hate fits into the context of the lyrics near perfectly. Perhaps, if we begin to proclaim the theme of the song loudly, in other words screaming at the top of our lungs, we will eventually be heard and we can turn things around. Can it make a difference in mankind's outcome? Do you agree it's a song before it's time and is a proclaimation of American society in 2016? I'm a child of 1961. Growing up in my time was so different than it is today for my grandchildren and it scares me. I don't tell them that fact. My daughter, a child of 1979, and I are hippies at heart, in our souls. So, we are trying very hard to teach them the policies, the beliefs of love over hate, but society doesn't make it easy. What are your family values? How do we best teach our (grand) children to be the best person they can be while accepting the fact that not everyone will be the same way? Just a bit of profound thinking that all stems back to the anthem of a great song. RedfoxinictKS (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Overview is original research
The entire Overview section is nothing but an essay and has no business being on Wikipedia. --Sm5574 (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)