Talk:Smack My Bitch Up

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

The story behind the music video that shocked the world Louder/Metal Hammer
[1] Archived version

Popular reference missing

Hi, in my opinion, a popular reference to a video remake (parody) of smack my bitch up is missing in the controversy / reference section. Although it may be inappropriate for younger audiences, a text reference to the well known video of 2011 (remake of smack my bitch up) should be added here. Please consider adding it for completion. Musterstudent (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing

Moved the music video info down lower and with a title, and took out the information about One Man's Army, as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the song Pnkrockr 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose hands are they?

So do the arms belong to the actress in the end?? who is she?? they do look like some guys hands though. --Witchinghour 10:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the arms belong to the actress, it's meant to question your perception on stereotypes of men and women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.248.251 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as she beat several men in fights and easily took on a crowd trying to stop her, she's either on a whole lot of steroids (which is contradicted by her appearance) or the video fails miserably to make me question my stereotypes because the woman pictured would be physically incapable of committing the acts shown. It's most likely the latter. You're explanation is the pretentious version the band probably likes to think is true, sure, but it's purely shock value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.157.136 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pretentious to say that the whole point of the video is to get viewers to question their assumptions. That's the most obvious inference given the unexpected reveal at the end. Whether or not the woman depicted could actually do all the things the video implies she does in real life is beside the point. Wikipedia doesn't exist to review the thematic quality of music videos. -- Hux (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Location

Is it set / filmed in London? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theme

The stuff you're talking about does not talk about the actual theme. Smack the bitch up is slang for injecting heroin, thats why they sing change my pitch up, smack my bitch up ))). Watch the video again and you'll get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.191 (User talk:76.10.140.191 ) 07:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up; I recall hearing similarly back when the video was released - SMBU being drug use slang. Maybe we should find some nice, verifiable secondary sources to bolster this, and we can add it to the page. Would that 'most controversial videos program be available somewhere? I think that's where I first heard the title=heroin use bit from... Empath (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction regarding female vocal?

The lead says that the song 'also contains a brief medley of an unidentified female singer'. Later, in the 'Composition' section, it says that the female vocals 'were performed by Shahin Badar'. Is the article contradicting itself, or is it referring to two different parts of the song, each with a different female vocalist? -- Hux (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this needs clarification. --Ef80 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video non-free file

@Aspects: I have inserted sourced, critical commentary on the subject of the video's cinematography and camera movements; how does the file not meet WP:NFCCP? QuestFour (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are not a lot of file used in music video sections of songs on Wikipedia. There has to be critical commentary for the file and I feel that there is that to have a single image, but I do not feel there is enough critical commentary to justify having the gif, and it would fail WP:NFCC#3b. Aspects (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; I have re-added more sourced commentary on the camera movements utilized in the file after it has been deleted through the editing, the subject now has equally as much coverage in the article as the drug use portion, and as a still image would fail to illustrate the former the file would cover both areas of the article and should meet NFCC#3b. Would this be a compromise? QuestFour (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no reply in five days, I will go ahead and restore the file per the above and WP:SILENCE. If you still disagree however, please feel free to undo this and discuss the matter here further. QuestFour (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not think there is enough critical commentary to justify having more than a still image and per WP:BRD, since there was no consensus on the issue, I am reverting back to the previous file. If no one else comes along, asking for a third opinion or taking the first image to WP:FFD might get a consensus formed. Aspects (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more commentary on the subject of the camera movements in the video, and as it's now discussed extensively in the article, considering its size, it should very well meet NFCC#3b. Hopefully this resolves the dispute. QuestFour (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since is no consensus between the two of us, I gave you two options that could take to get third/more opinions on the matter. Instead you chose to revert against WP:BRD, which could be seen as WP:Edit warring, and since there is still no consensus I am reverting back to the original file. Aspects (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The jpg seems sufficient. I agree with the gif being too much to even justify WP:NFCC#3b. – The Grid (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]