Talk:Margical History Tour

Beethoven Mislabeled

In the Mozart and Salieri section, towards the end when Salieri visits the emperor only to find the emperor working with Beethoven. Is Beethoven (Nelson)playing the 9th Symphony (as listed in this article) or is it really the 5th Symphony. Nelson says " Ha Ha Ha Haaaa" much like the opening of Beethoven's 5th. I'm not going to change the article until I can watch the episode again and verify this. Can anyone else verify it?

Thanks, --Andrew

--Ajjammer 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

He is playing the 9th symphony on the piano, and the music switches to the 5th symphony after the Kaisers comments. (Starting with Beethovens "Ha Ha Ha Ha") Verified.83.109.80.208 (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Sentence, no verification

I was reading the article over and it has "a shelter for hobos. And now only lets everyone checkout the videos Yugi-Oh! The Movie and Everybody Poops. " Very awkward, but I'm unsure of the meaning and not able to verify the clip at present. Is it intended to be "a shelter for hobos and now only lets..." or something different. Verification, anyone? P.Mk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the only "Children's Section" material are "Everybody Poops: THe Video" and "Yu-Gi-Oh! Price Guides".--Dan2paul (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical license

"Much of the episode is loosely based on stories from history, taking artistic license for humorous effect. In the Henry VIII mini-story, Homer refers to Margerine's father as the King of Spain. Historically, the father of Catherine of Aragon was Ferdinand II, who was King of Aragon. Ferdinand had died in 1516, before Henry met Anne Boleyn. Also, the historical Henry died of syphilis, rather than being killed by Catherine. At the end of the mini-story, Marge claims that under Elizabeth I, "England's power was never greater," ignoring the acquisition of colonial territory long after her reign that made the British Empire the dominant world power of the 19th century."

For an episode whose plot is based on historical stories, reference to historical license is far from non-notable. Rather, it is just as significant as "Cultural References". Indeed, with history being part of culture, it arguably falls under exactly that same category. Were in not for the nature of the episode, it would probably be better simply to merge it into the short paragraphs under "Cultural references" (something I have tried here). Otherwise, we would have to question the need to mention that Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is not an opera in that section.

A minor note on original research: much of the Cultural references section at the moment is unverified, original research. In fact, none of this article cites its sources. Understandably, the expectation is that sources will eventually be found, but as with other articles (in my experience, the articles of this Wikiproject especially), that does not call for the removal of all uncited facts. However, I will admit it is somewhat funny that the well-established claim that the British Empire had colonial territory is, in this instance, more unverified OR than the uncited, unattested claim that the episode makes reference to the Oh Henry! bar.

The underlying point is that a Wikipedia article cannot improve, in either assessed article-class or actual usefulness on the subject, if it not expanded so as to cover all relevant aspects of the subject with comprehensiveness and reliability. It is my opinion that, for this article in particular and in accordance with the relevant guidelines, a short mention of artistic license is both relevant and notable. If deemed necessary, either now or at any point in the future, the verifiability/OR issues can be be easily and immediately solved: sources for the simple facts of history can be provided with no difficulty (indeed, with greater ease than the other cultural references). Of course, I do submit that Wikipedia is, after all, based on editorial consensus — with that in mind, I believe my position is clear, and shall submit this to discussion. All the best. 194.125.57.52 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to the WP:3O request. The cultural references section is on shaky ground on several major policies, including WP:V and WP:NOR. Historical texts alone can't be used to back up this section, as that would constitute original research. Any citation would have to be a notable (i.e. published) analysis of the episode, which I suspect does not exist. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I would suggest tagging the section, rather than removing it. If no citations can be provided in a reasonable amount of time, I would then remove it. --Elplatt (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to remember that IPs don't care about things like making sections encyclopedic and conform to guidelines, so tagging is pointless since nothing would be done about it. You have to remember that The Simpsons is just a cartoon. The entire episode was just a joke, it's not like it's meant to be historically accurate and that everything other than what you added is correct (Thomas More was not fired out of a cannon, Mozart did not write an opera about beans called "The Magic Fruit" and Sacagawea does not translate to "little know-it-all who won't shut her maize hole"). As for the CRs, I have no problem with removing them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I tend to agree with your "just a cartoon" statement, which I interpret as questioning the article's notability. However, many TV show episodes make it on to Wikipedia and stay here, so the notability isn't clear-cut. Also, there are fields of study, such as media studies in which some TV episodes could be considered notable. Again, I would rather not remove too much information without more input, in the interest of assuming good faith. Any problems with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR should definitely be tagged though. --Elplatt (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not questioning the notability at all, I just find it ironic and humorous when people add sections about inaccuracies in episodes of a cartoon featuring yellow people. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, got it. --Elplatt (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"IPs don't care about things like making sections encyclopedic." I consider generalisations such at that unfair. Remember that Anonymous IPs produce some of Wikipedia's best content, and that anonymous contributors with a single edit have the highest quality of any group editing Wikipedia. In my own opinion, my few IP edits as 194.125.57.52 (which go beyond the discussion at hand) have complied fully with WP guidelines, from being bold right right down to seeking a third opinion for an amicable resolution — which, I might add, is one I fully intend to abide by. In future, bear in mind that not all anon edits are the actions of disruptive vandals.

I would also add that from the start I saw your point that The Simpsons is just a cartoon. (Though I would respond that "England's power was never greater" was clearly not a joke). In a similar vein, it is equally ironic that there are people such as ourselves who make any edits to articles on a cartoon featuring yellow people.

Lastly, thank you Elplatt for your valued opinion. I wish you both long and productive spells of editing. 78.16.197.118 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To my mind there is plenty of evidence that anonymous IP users have made several valuable contributions, and continue to do so. For my part, I tend not to log in unless I nrrd to do something which can only be done by an established user, such as edit a semiprotected article. -- Korax1214 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason this is irrelevant is because this discussion ended 5 months ago, and just because you have an account now, there is no need to revive it, especially since you're commenting on something not relating to the discussion. There may be the odd IP who is a valuable contributor, but they are few and far between. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Beethoven Music

What Beethoven music was used because I can't find it on wikipedia? Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)