Talk:The Star-Spangled Banner

Super Bowl

The Daily Mail is reporting that Christina Aguilera's mistake in singing the national anthem at Super Bowl XLV is based on a mistake on this page. See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354005/Super-Bowl-2011-Christina-Aguilera-sings-botched-Wikipedia-National-Anthem.html XinJeisan (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK is currently in contact with the newspaper to get their reporting corrected - seeing as the edit was made here as a result of the mistake, rather than the other way around... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail apparently got confused over the timestamps. Aguilera's error was noted in the article prior to the (very temporary) change in the lyrics which matched the way Aguilera had already sung it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Star Spangled Banner on the Billboard Hot 100

I need to point out an inaccuracy regarding the anthem's success on the Billboard Hot 100 charts. Whitney Houston is not the only act to have hit the Hot 100 with The Star Spangled Banner; according to the book Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-1999, page 218, José Feliciano's version that had raised eyebrows was released as a single, and it peaked on the Billboard Hot 100 at #50 in the fall of 1968. Since the page is locked down to further changes, I can't amend the article to reflect this fact (listed under "Modern history"). In order to be correct and give José's version its proper credit, if someone could make this change it would be appreciated. Thanks.174.126.231.184 (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

As the talk page has exceeded 110 kilobytes, I have initiated automatic archiving. KimChee (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

nonnotable trivia

The given source doesn't mention "Star Spangled Banner"; furthermore it doesn't appear likely that there is an independent WP:RS elevating this trivia to a notable reference (a review written by a well known reviewer - not a wiki or blog) TEDickey (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It mentions the "national anthem". Since they are in the present day United States on this Earth (if you don't get that reference, look up the article for the show) so therefore that would be the Star-Spangled Banner. And might I point out that most of the references don't even have sources. So what we need here is a massive overhaul of that section, not a nitpicking of individual parts of it. Smartyllama (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It "mentions" a large number of things. Are you contemplating adding a link in each place? (Pointing out that the mention of the national anthem in the given source is incidental, and unlikely to be noted in a WP:RS review). By the way, your source isn't WP:RS, being a community-edited site - like this one TEDickey (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this reference should be removed. But then we need to reevaluate the section as a whole. I'm not trying to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I'm just saying that, whatever policy we choose, we should apply it consistently to all trivias/cultural references in that section. If we say that there is no major source that alludes just to the national anthem part of the sliders episode, we will also need to find a source that alludes merely to the national anthem component of the Ken Burns baseball documentary, a reliable source that alludes solely to the national anthem component of Charlie Brown, and so on, or else remove those parts. So if this isn't acceptable, I have no problem with that, but then what we need is to completely rewrite the section because clearly it's not up to proper standards. Smartyllama (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure - we should remove most of that stuff (and it gets weeded periodically). However, this instance is not more topical in any respect than any of the others TEDickey (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying we need to apply a consistent standard, whatever that standard is. And it isn't any less topical either. Which brings us back to the consistent standard issue. We should probably open up to further discussion regarding what defines a "topical example" and then weed out the section accordingly. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your example, a review noting the feature being discussed. TEDickey (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that I added a better source for this example and also corrected the quote regarding Canadian teams per the better source. Smartyllama (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit refers to the main page, without being specific. TEDickey (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect we wouldn't find a source for any of those which just mentions the national anthem component. Which brings us back to the idea of reevaluating the topicality standard. Smartyllama (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines are workable. Adding exceptions doesn't sound like an improvement. TEDickey (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we need to evaluate the section as a whole before making a decision on individual items. By the way, where in WP:RS does it say that the source must refer only to the specific item mentioned in the citation? I couldn't find anything along those lines there. Perhaps I'm missing something... Smartyllama (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There's more than one point (you might find it useful to read through WP:RS and become familiar with it). For instance "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." TEDickey (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Which this source does. It clearly provides support for the fact that Rembrandt was driving to SF game to sing the national anthem when he drove through the wormhole, and also provides support for the Soviet anthem/Canada statement when the USSR anthem is played before the "Reds" game. I don't see where it says that it must directly support the information presented in an article and nothing else. And on a side note (which I don't give too much credence to to avoid OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) most of the citations in this article link to sites that discuss other related subjects as well as the specific, exact subject matter which is being cited (ie where it says "My Country 'Tis of Thee" is to the same tune as God Save the Queen, the source is an article about MCTOT which mentions the tune note as well as other related info about it, which is not mentioned in this article. Most other sources have similar properties). So, while I'm not using that as an example to prove that the rule is not as you say it is, I'm saying that if it is as you are interpreting it, we probably need to rewrite the whole article, not just this section. Perhaps I am misunderstandind something. If I am, let me know. Smartyllama (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

None of what you're saying addresses my point that it is an incidental mention, and hence not a good source per my previous comment. If the relationship is notable, one would expect it noticed - not simply regurgitated in a blow-by-blow listing of the plot. TEDickey (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes in spelling of the lyrics

There are several differences in the spelling of some of the words in the lyrics between the original handwritten copy and what is printed in our article. Perhaps these should be noted. For example, the fifth line of the first verse has a singular "bomb bursting in air", but we now sing "bombs". Has someone researched where these changes were introduced and why they were made? --Thomprod (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, but the 1814 printed copy has the modern version. Maybe when he took it to the publisher he had some discussions with them to "polish" the wording a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sheet Music

The Sheet Music on the page is not the type that is normally used. There are numerous times (such as the first two notes) where the sheet music has two eighth notes and normally it has dotted eighth and sixteenth. Also at parts (such as "proudly we" in the first line) it has three quarter notes when normally it is dotted quarter, eighth, quarter. 67.86.150.191 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be copyrighted 1917, so maybe things were done a little differently then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it, looking at the 1915 song version on the wikipedia page, both of the changes I pointed out were implemented. Although there were a few other noticeable differences from the more modern versions I've heard. I listened to all the rest of the songs on this page, and they are all very similar to the more modern arrangements I've heard. So while there has been a bit of space for interpretation with different arrangements, I haven't heard any arrangement that plays it like that sheet music does. 67.86.150.191 (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The US Air Force has sheet music posted online in PDF files, and I think other governmental websites have it. So more can be added, but I would rather have maybe just 1 from 1917, one from today and from different periods. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)