Talk:Beans, Beans, the Musical Fruit

A note

Do we really need this article? Surely it should be merged into beans or something? violet/riga (t) 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I simply made the article because of a request. Feel free to merge/delete.

s7rugg1e

I've always known it as Beans Beans the Musical Fruit too. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the article...merging sounds like a really bad idea. But do we know the copyright status on the lyrics? They might actually not be public domain, you know.

I'm going to run some google searches to get a feel for the most common title...I always heard the "wonderful" fruit. Definitely doesn't need "..." in the title unless it's an official title. NickelShoe 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Magical [1] 2340

Wonderful [2] 347

Musical [3] 934

It usually has commas...any objections to moving this page to Beans, Beans, the Magical Fruit?

I'm going to go ahead and remove the lyrics. We don't need to post whole songs even if they are public domain. Quoting is one thing, but the whole song is over the top.

NickelShoe 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish the text could be posted Jordskjelv 13:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. It's not a very long verse, after all. Nsayer 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because of its length, it should be okay to quote, if we can come up with a source. The problem is, who has any idea on the origin of the song? I've not done any research, and I'm not quite sure where to start. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be merged. I think it would be really hard to find and not a great idea, because it is more like beans and farting combined, but merge it if you want, although I would still advise against it.

-Tardigrade Princess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.219.4 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Beans, Beans, the Musical Fruit

Wow, three months later and the same Google test gets totally different results, with Musical being way more common. We can move the page to Beans, Beans, the Musical Fruit if you want. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be great!

JB Waltz

== I think it needs the lyrics == (ugly beans)

Hello, I've heard quite a few different versions so I think it would be good to make a list.

Beans, beans, good for the heart, the more you eat the more you fart, the more you fart the better you feel, so lets have beans for every meal.

Beans, beans, the magical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot, the more you toot the better you feel, so lets have beans for every meal.

Beans, beans, the magical fruit, the more you eat the more you poot, the more you poot the better you feel, so lets have beans for every meal. I guess that was more arkansas and oklahoma area

God knows who says toot instead of fart, I have a feeling that it was adapted for TV because they thought fart was to rude.

Toot rhymes with fruit. - Friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.119.177 (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I've always know this song as the Magical fruit, but I know it goes by many different names. Think anyone could add them to the description? Also, I added many more verses, some that I already knew, and some that I looked up. Feel free to mess around with them and change it up.

-Tardigrade Princess

Growing up in NE New Jersey in the 50s, I learned the songs thusly:

Beans, beans, good for the heart, the more you eat the more you fart, the more you fart the better you feel, so eat your beans at every meal.

Beans, beans, the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot, the more you toot the better you feel, so eat your beans with every meal.

I am curious to where and when other readers learned their versions. 71.125.231.136 13:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Toot is fairly common. Especially towards children. The issue with lyrics is whether or not they're copyrighted. If you want to figure that out, be my guest. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had a quick try had finding if it's copywrited, I can't find it but that doesn't mean it isn't. I found this web site http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html but it doesn't give you the lyrics so I can't see if it's one of the songs listed. --Stripy42 18:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible to work around the absence of evidence of public domain status, by linking to websites that host the lyrics. I've done that; if anyone changes it back, please share why it's not acceptable. Geo.per 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it isn't copyrighted, use common sense! If it were copyrighted, the holder of the copyright (whether an individual or an institution) would have issued a statement about it at some point in the past, say, eighty years, and would have become very notorious for doing so. 70.248.201.56 20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Using "Musical" in the rhyme relates better to "toot" than "Magical". It not only preserves the rhyme, but it also makes the connection of "toot" to a musical note.

73.118.134.103 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Beans beans the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot. The more you toot the better you feel, so eat your beans at every meal. (The version I remember from about 1940.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.8.13 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevance and sourcing

I realize this is a ubiquitous song for some Americans, particularly from a certain era. But is it really relevant enough to have its own article? What's more, even if a number of editors vote yes here, it still does not have any verifiable sourcing or references from reliable outside publications. I guess what I'm saying is, if there really is a will to include a slightly blue children's song about flatulence in Wikipedia, can those who share it most strongly at least properly source this article? That would make it easier to defend as an article.NYDCSP 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is highly relevant because so many people heard that song when they were young, and would like to know something about it. Sourcing it to your satisfaction may be completely impossible, the song could have been made up by a cowboy in 1872, and then spread like wildfire across the nation, uncredited. Or maybe a British soldier made it up in the trenches in late 1917, and an American soldier repeated it when he got home. Don't hurt yourself now, trying to find out where it originated or whether it's copyrighted. 70.248.201.56 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

T-shirt

I've seen a T-shirt with the text, "Beans: the magical fruit" on it. Should that be added to the section on the bottom or put in somewhere? That's actually the first time I read the phrase. Kennard2 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I have never seen that before, and I think it's probably too obscure to add.

-Tardigrade Princess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.219.4 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Melody

The melody of this song seems to have been taken from a Philippine folk song called "Sitsiritsit alibangbang"(see for example [4] and [5]). Does anyone have an idea of the origin of the "beans" version? --Polaron | Talk 13:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it has no melody, merely a meter 24.205.64.27 (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to say it is a children's song as the article says. It should be specified that it has no melody (no tune). At least, I have not found any evidence that there is a tune. I do not know the formal way to say this (I am OK with it being called a song if it's clear there's no tune). Cstanford.math (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This confuses me - we always sang this as a song:

Beans, beans, good for the heart The more you eat, the more you fart, The more you fart the better you feel, So eat baked beans for every meal.

I am interested to know which came first - I would imagine that 'musical fruit' is a bowlderisation of 'good for the heart'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Manley (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Popular culture" section

While it is not an agreed guideline per se, the essay WP:"In popular culture" articles suggests, "'In popular culture' sections should be carefully maintained and contain sourced examples demonstrating a subject's cultural significance." Such sections tend to grow heavy with unsourced original research if not pruned. I would suggest that the current "Popular culture references" section is problematic in that in includes only one reference, and there is no clear rationale for including the other items in it (nor excluding other instances). Cnilep (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

I was surprised to see that of all the lyrics listed, they all ended in "so lets eat beans for every meal" or "so we eat beans for every meal". Wherever I've heard the song sung, whether on cartoons or from friends when I was a kid, the last line is always "beans, beans, for every meal". It just doesn't make sense to sing it any other way. I mean, the song begins with the line "Beans, beans" and then every subsequent line rhymes with the last, so it only makes sense to close it with the "Beans, beans" refrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.37.79 (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions there are a lot of variants. While that version makes the most sense to you, and I can see the poetic reason to repeat "beans, beans", it's never how I heard it and I think you only say "It just doesn't make sense to sing it any other way" because that's the way you are used to.

I always heard: "so let's have beans for every meal." Cstanford.math (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Origin

I am fairly sure that this originates from 17th Century graffiti in the UK, I would like to see origin included here (along with the original examples (which were all 'heart' rather than 'fruit'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Manley (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Different Names

As you might already know, Beans, Beans, the magical fruit goes by many different names. Could someone please add them to the article? Here are some: Magical Musical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.219.4 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Different Endings

then you're ready for another meal

As with the different names, there are many different endings

So let's eat beans with every meal!

So let's have beans with every meal!

So let's eat beans for every meal!

So let's have beans for every meal!

So eat beans with every meal!

So have beans with every meal!

So we eat beans for every meal!

Beans, beans, for every meal!

The insinuation of beans being musical is that the sound produced by flatulence is similar to a brass instrument.

(Note: Previous discussion of this issue is at User talk:Crawdaunt#September 2021. Sundayclose (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC))

Sundayclose I invite you and any other to refute the internal logic of the joke that beans are musical because they make you fart, and farts sound like a trumpet, trombone, or other brass instrument. There is no external authoritative citation to prove this. It is the self-evident inherent quality of the statement. The origin of the joke itself is steeped in a personal opinion, as someone, at some point, ascribed the quality "musical" to beans because they "make you toot." I can provide similar opinions galore about how farts sound like brass musical instruments. I cannot provide an authoritative citation that somehow proves this is the intent of the joke's creator that beans, which make you fart, are "musical" because farts sound like instruments. The justification of brass instrument is both due to tonal quality (again, common knowledge; linking to the umpteen thousand videos on YouTube titled "fart trumpet" is untenable and would never suffice as objective evidence), and the nature of the source of vibration (air passing through a hole).

Some arbitrary educational and opinion articles to demonstrate this is not a contentious point:

"Farting isn’t too different from playing a brass instrument. With a tuba, for instance, to make a sound, you have to press your lips tightly together and blow air through the opening of the instrument. When you blow the same amount of air through the opening with super tight lips, the sound changes. The same principle applies to flatulence. Pass just a little gas, and the sound changes again. Sometimes we try to let gas out slowly, that’s a different sonic experience."

"He compares it to a musical instrument: the smaller the size of the exit point, the higher the pitch—and perhaps more squeaky it will be. And the larger the opening at the moment, the lower the sound."

"Listeners pointed out that Loz's 7-tone fart sounded like one of the motifs in Beethoven's 6th symphony. The symphony has been played in classes at Berklee College of Music in the US - the world's largest independent college of contemporary music - all the way to Royal Oak Intermediate here in Auckland. The 'Fart Symphony' has a lot of wind instruments, but the main star of the composition is the wind that composer Loz Blain produced himself."

"Is it a fart or french horn? It's time to see if we can recognize whether a sound is a musical instrument or fart!"

The intent of the simple edit explaining this logic is to avoid page vandalism. The page is constantly edited by random users re-inserting the word "Magical" in place of Musical due to personal preference. To discourage this, I propose to simply explain that the quality "musical" is ascribed to beans, owing to their ability to produce sound by route of flatus (the passing of air through a sphincter), similar to how a brass instrument produces sound by passing air through holes with controlled points (effectively sphincters). I'd be happy to change it to "wind instrument" as this is more encompassing to non-brass musical tubes.

Why not both versions?

Sundayclose Crawdaunt, please explain to me why not including all versions of the rhyme widely in use is a defendable choice for an encyclopedia? There should be citations for all versions, but simply acting as though the only rhyme is "musical" and not "magical" is (1) unscientific (2) invites continuing edit wars. Please try to work towards a more objective all-inclusive page draft?

A simple google search shows both uses are common. I truly do not understand. Cstanford.math (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cstanford.math and Crawdaunt: Thanks for the suggestion. This is worth discussing, but I would have preferred that Cstanford.math discuss before adding it to the article, especially without including a source. Also, I'm not sure if Cstanford.math thinks that Crawdaunt or I have "edit warred" with each other, but if you look at the discussion here and on Crawdaunt's talk page, you will see a civil discussion and an agreement by both of us to move the discussion to this talk page. Neither of us edit warred.

Regarding the suggested inclusion of "magical", as I said it's worth discussing, but I think the basis of the humor is the sound of the fart, not the magic (that's a point on which Crawdaunt and I agree). Additionally, the article can only have one title and cannot include both "musical" and "magical". But I'm open to further discussion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Apologies for the edit warring accusation, that may have been premature.

To explain my edit, I wasn't the first to add "magical" to the article --- looking at the history I was finding numerous edits (most of them rather trivial) regarding the dispute between musical and magical. My edit was an attempt to try to resolve this history of trivialities by making a more inclusive article with both versions. (On the talk page I also see a section regarding the same triviality.) I think the best way to avoid these continuing edits/disputes is be agnostic to both variants, not in the title, but in the body.

Your comment (and discussions with Crawdaunt) regarding "the basis of the humor is the sound" are immaterial here, I think. What matters is the usage of the rhyme in practice, and both variations appear to be common. If I had a bit more time, I'd try to dig up some more authoritative citations on that than the Google Ngrams search I originally linked.

Would we be agreed on keeping the title as it is, and explaining in the body that both variations are seen? Thanks, Cstanford.math (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cstanford.math: Yes, your accusation was premature and ill-considered.

I don't agree with you that the sound of the fart is immaterial to this issue, especially since there is an ongoing discussion about the sound.

Regarding your edit, it's inappropriate to try to solve a problem by unilaterally deciding to make an unsourced edit with no discussion. I hope you will do the right thing and self-revert your edit until there is a consensus here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that that comment was premature and ill-considered. My apologies.

How is the sound relevant? I think what is relevant is whether both variations are in usage. Do you agree with that?

Also, do you agree that the presence of the rhyme with "magical" is in common use, or not?

If you agree with both, then the page should mention both wordings. But happy to discuss further.

We should definitely find a consensus, but I won't self-revert this minor change for the following reasons: (i) you previously reverted my edit without comment, and (ii) dozens of other previous versions of the article with "magical" mentioned are also currently hidden in the history, having been removed by someone (probably other than you, I didn't check).

Cstanford.math (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was not minor; please read WP:MINOR. If you think we need consensus, why did you make the edit without discussion (and fail to provide a source)? The widely accepted practice on Wikipedia is to discuss, reach consensus if possible, and then edit according to that consensus. I want to settle this problem before discussing the merits of "magical", how widespread it is, or how important sound is in determining the content of the article. Unless others express an opinion on your edit, you and I are at an impasse. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

> If you think we need consensus, why did you make the edit without discussion (and fail to provide a source)?

As I said in my original edit here: "There seems to be a lot of edit-warring on this page w.r.t. "magical" vs "musical". Trying to resolve that in the narrative of the page by providing both alternatives."

I did not add "magical" to the page; the previous version had it already. I tried to clarify and expand that both usages are present. Your edit not only reverted my change, but removed all mention of "magical" without any talk page discussion or consensus.

I am asking you to consider the broader context here: the article history clearly shows repeated edits back and forth by users (likely coming from Google) removing "musical" to insert "magical", or indicating both, etc.

I didn't mean minor in the WP:MINOR-defined sense, my apologies that that was unclear. Cstanford.math (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

At best you restored an unsourced edit. It needs to be removed until we reach consensus. If you look at the page history, that or a similar edit has been removed many times by multiple editors. That makes the version without it the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. As I said, at this point you and I are at an impasse. I think we've made our points, so I guess we see if anyone else has thoughts on it. If not, I suppose we try WP:DR. But thanks for discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I also don’t think the sound is immaterial. The page already notes that other phrasings exist.

I think the “Magical” wording is a misquoting of the original rhyme that has become so prevalent as to become somewhat mainstream - I do not know the first mentions, but maybe a Google “frequency of phrasing” search could help find early mentions. To settle the Magical vs Musical debate amongst us, I’d propose that such a search be done and results determine the outcome.

However, so pervasive is this misquoting that on the official The Simpsons Fandom page, the article is titled as “Magical”, despite the video clip within clearly showing Bart pronounce it as “Musical.” https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Beans,_Beans_The_Magical_Fruit

I don’t think stubborn ignorance should be treated equal to fact. Perhaps a comparison to the Berenstain-Berenstein Bears controversy could be appropriate. But I wouldn’t resolve that controversy by insisting both -stein and -stain spellings are “commonly used.” There is objective fact to be had here, and while I haven’t demonstrated Musical as the original source, the internal logic of the joke is a clear reference to the sound of farts being akin to a musical instrument. Crawdaunt (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Crawdaunt. For the sake of argument, let's say you are right that "Magical Fruit" is simply a common misspelling similar to Berenstain-Berenstein. But then it is still in widespread use, and thus notable enough to mention in the article. As a point of evidence, the wiki page for Berenstain Bears does contain a section on the "Berenstein" spelling, as of now.

Do we have a reference showing that the "original" or "correct" is "musical"? Not even sure what counts as correct for what is essentially a children's oral tradition. I always heard the rhyme as "magical", I didn't just misremember it that way. I think the path forward would be to find some primary sources and clearly state which version is original/correct (if any) and which are commonly seen (with sources). At any rate I feel very strongly that "magical" deserves mention, whether as an alternative or as a misspelling. Cstanford.math (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

We did... your last edit (-455 characters) deleted it. Re-posting here as response:

BeansMusicalFruit_ngrams

A preliminary Google n-gram search for “beans the musical” and “beans the magical” yields the following trend (right photo):

"beans the musical" first saw use in the late 1940s-1950s, then a resurgence in the 1980s-1990s, and again in the mid-late 00s; "beans the magical" was not found. Longer phrases weren’t found, though alternate phrases like “the musical fruit” and “the magical fruit” were. “the musical fruit” predominates in the modern era, while “the magical fruit” saw a resurgence only in the 1990s. It’s worth noting that The Simpsons episode Whacking Day aired in 1993. A second episode parodying "The Magical Flute" and "Beans beans the musical fruit" also aired in 2004 (see: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Musical_Fruit). It's possible this is a key source of confusion, and indeed there is a second spike in the early 2000s that coincides with a drop in the phrase "the musical fruit." However as mentioned previously, the early episode used the phrasing “the musical fruit,” so I hope this provides some evidence that the invention of the phrasing “the magical fruit” came afterwards in the modern era. The Simpsons, being the societal juggernaut they are, likely contributed to the modern resurgence of the phrasing, and the invention of the phrasing "the magical fruit" in the modern lexicon coincided with a misquoting of The Simpsons from 1993, and was perhaps bolstered by the parody of The Magical Flute and Beans Beans the Musical fruit in 2004.

re: Berenstein vs Berenstain: I don't think they're treated as equal. I'm ok with the current edit, but I do think given the new n-gram evidence that there's justification to treat "magical" as a misquoting of the song. Personally, this is also aesthetically pleasing because... the joke is about farts making noise guys. It's not magic. It's muuuusic Crawdaunt (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Crawdaunt! Sorry about the -455 characters on the talk page, I have no idea how that happened, I guess a concurrent edit to the talk page.

I am in favor of not treating the two equally. I only strongly want "magical" to be mentioned/discussed in the article. (Just as "berenstein" is discussed in the Baranstain bears article!) The text above investigating ngrams is a good start. If anyone wants to try a revision discussing that, I think that would be welcome. Cstanford.math (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I can accept that "magical" is mentioned (as it is now), but nothing more because it's not nearly as notable and significantly strays from the actual meaning of the song (i.e., sound) as well as the title of the article. The Google search is impressive, but the mention in the article requires an additional source (which should have been done in the first place). Leave it as it is now with the addition of a citation. Sundayclose (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be willing to write an attempt at a small section on the history of the confusion ( a la berenstein vs berenstain). But would first want to confirm with @Sundayclose for consensus. Can one cite a google search with an “accessed on” date? Would the screenshot with a full citation of info (i.e. Google n-grams as website, search terms as title, etc…) suffice? Such that one could replicate the search whenever needed? Crawdaunt (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crawdaunt: Although I appreciate that you would write it, I don't think "magical" merits any more than what is already in the article. This is a very short article, and I think what's already in the article is sufficient WP:WEIGHT. But it needs a citation. Sundayclose (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s a short article because it’s perhaps a bit incomplete. That’s the current discussion is it not?

I get the sense magical is pervasive, and if n-grams is any indication, it’s nearly as common as musical fruit. Asked a friend who was surprised to learn it was musical, then went “oh yeah, that makes sense.”

So there’s an anecdote to back up n-grams and the frequent editing, haha. But I think it’s reasonable to discuss magical given the trend of belief. How about I give it a whirl and you can decide if it’s useful/worthwhile (since you’re the holdout) Crawdaunt (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@SundayClose: @Cstanford.math: here's my proposed edit to the "Popular Culture" section. I've removed the references from the main page to avoid clutter on the Talk page. As far as I understand, the consensus on whether this is worthwhile is 2:1 (myself and Cstanford.math 2 : 1 SundayClose).

Popular Culture

Figure caption: Google n-grams for "beans the musical", "beans the magical", "the musical fruit", and "the magical fruit". Use of the phrase "the magical fruit" rose only after 1993, when an episode of The Simpsons sang a rendition of "Beans Beans the Musical Fruit".

A common alternate lyric calls beans the "magical fruit." In The Simpsons episode "Whacking Day (1993)," Bart performs a rendition of "Beans beans the musical fruit" using the "musical fruit" lyrics. Google Ngram Viewer is a research tool that measures the frequency of a phrase appearing in various media over time. This 1993 Simpsons episode coincides with a precipitous rise in the n-gram for both "the musical fruit" and "the magical fruit" (see article image). Use of the n-gram "the musical fruit" was already circulating prior to this event, while "the magical fruit" rose to prominence only after 1993. Similarly, the n-gram "beans the musical" is also first present prior to 1950, while "beans the magical" was not found. It is not clear why the phrasing "the magical fruit" became popular, though common usage of the n-gram "the magical fruit" rivals that of "the musical fruit."

A version of the rhyme appears at the beginning of Robert Crumb's comic strip, "Crybaby's Blues".

I am in favor of this. Needs some edits first: (1) references, particularly for the Robert Crumb statement. (2) "rose only after 1993" I would prefer to remove "only" as the ngram doesn't clearly support that, as there are rises/falls prior to 1993. (3) remove the sentence explaining what Google Ngram Viewer is, that is not relevant to the topic of this page (4) "It is not clear why" is also not appropriate phrasing for a wiki article because it suggests you are doing original research rather than citing facts. Probably just remove that sentence. Also reword to remove "n-gram" in the text probably and replace with "According to Google Ngram Viewer, ..." Cstanford.math (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crawdaunt and Cstanford.math: I have a few concerns. First, though, let me be clear. Although I appreciate the efforts, I oppose expanding the article any more regarding "magical", for the reasons I have stated above. But I am discussing this because the discussion is now on the table, not because I am offering support for expansion of "magical". The suggested addition increases the main body of the article (excluding lyrics and popular culture) from approximately 69 words to 146 words, or about 112%. Most of this sizeable increase pertains to "magical", which likely is a misquoting of the original rhyme (as noted above). So essentially it more than doubles the size of the article with a topic that is not part of the original rhyme. It's not entirely off topic, but I don't think "magical" merits that much focus, per WP:WEIGHT. Let me state again, I oppose any expansion of "magical", but if a consensus emerges to add more, I think the suggested edit, though well-intentioned, should be trimmed considerably. I would suggest the trimmed version myself, but since I'm basically opposed to all of it, I will let others make suggestions first.

Another concern is whether Google n-grams can be considered a reliable source. In general, Google searches cannot be the primary basis for sourcing an edit, but I am not familiar with n-grams enough to boldly state that it is unreliable. I do, however, think this matter should be discussed at WP:RSNB to get an opinion from the larger Wikipedia community before using it as a source.

Thanks for the discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@SundayClose: My view on this is basically: whether I like it or not, Magical is almost as common as Musical it seems (n-grams, and also the constant page edits). So I wouldn't ignore it. The suggested edit would move the first mention of Magical to the end of the page rather than immediately, and would explain the context. My primary goal in this edit is simply to add context to the page to effectively settle the debate so that Wikipedia can be a source of information on the topic, rather than ignoring information on the topic. Crawdaunt (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: @Crawdaunt: According to this page on the reliable source noticeboard, Google N-Grams constitutes original research rather than a reliable source on its own. Other than that I disagree with all of SundayClose's skepticism about the relevance and weight of "magical" given current evidence that it is highly relevant. However, given the problem with N-Grams, I think we need better sources in order to include another section. If we can find any then we can include an edit. Cstanford.math (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: @Cstanford.math: I also disagree with SundayClose re: relevance of Magical. The n-grams data make this case objectively, it is nearly as common as Musical. That said... for sure it's original research. I produced this by testing a hypothesis and using n-grams as a tool. I did this because the conversation on this Talk page demanded context to understand the origin of both phrases, and this totally unimportant question lacks any objective investigation publicly. I appreciate that Wikipedia is not a place for original research to be posted, but you won't find this information outside this talk page - I am the source. The only way you'd find a citation for this is if I create an external page with this information. This would, of course, be a similar violation of principles. Is there a process for Wikipedia to handle something like this? Crawdaunt (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The first place to go is WP:RSNB, where the entire Wikipedia community can view the issue and offer solutions or opinions. That said, however, I think it is a slippery slope to try to make the case that a rationale for using original research is based on "this totally unimportant question lacks any objective investigation publicly. ... you won't find this information outside this talk page - I am the source." If the only support for an edit is the conclusion of one or two editors without any reference to an objective, external, and reliable source, that is the very definition of original research. Anyone could try to make the argument for almost any edit on that basis. It's also flawed logic to conclude that, simply because none of us can find a source on the internet, then a source does not exist. And I understand that n-grams provides support, but that seems to be indicative of the basic problem; if this information can only be supported by an unreliable source, then perhaps the information doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I don't mean this to be directed personally at anyone here. I have seen this process play out in other situations on Wikipedia, with the same conclusion: it's original research. All of that being said, I certainly welcome other opinions from WP:RSNB or elsewhere. I don't offer these comments simply because I oppose the edit; in this case, it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. I actually wish there was a reliable source that could address this issue. Then we could narrow our focus on the issue of WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to say that n-grams itself is not unreliable. N-grams is a research tool. One can use n-grams to answer a question, but the interpretation is by the user. The user is what's unreliable. That's why n-grams is (rightly) listed as an unreliable source.

As the user doing the interpretation: I included contrasting phrases to be sure that both Musical and Magical were given a fair shot. But one would not be justified if they just looked for "beans the magical" compared to "the musical fruit" and decided based on that comparison; the user would have designed a bad hypothesis test. So when I say I am the source, it is because it is original research by me, using the n-grams tool. I recognize that isn't Wikipedia-appropriate. But I also find the whole situation here regarding standard of evidence and objectivity to be a bit strange... As a scientist by training, this entire article (and most articles like this one) are sourced almost exclusively from popular culture (magazines, aggregate websites) that has no form of peer review or required fact checking. These are just glorified opinion pieces, most of which make only a passing commentary and are being cited solely as a "yes, this is consistent with the sentence I just wrote" type of citation, rather than citing a source as objective fact. At no point does reference 1 in the article actually say "this is a song about flatulence." It's just so common sense that it appeases the community to at least have somewhere to point someone to. Likewise, reference 2 is just a link to a web page on flatulence by some company. It cites no sources for its information. It's just aggregated information and seems mostly correct, but heck, reference 1 at least links out to peer reviewed research with a traceable author. Reference 3 is a recipe card where the song lyrics are broken up as spacers between paragraphs. We haven't even addressed the fact that alternate lyrics are "so let's have beans for every meal" in the final line. We've just accepted that Andrew Croft, a writer for the Utah State Student Organic Farm Newsletter, is the authority on the "Beans Beans the Musical Fruit" lyrics. Basically all information in the article is poorly sourced in my opinion, but it's so common knowledge that it's ridiculous to suggest the article needs to be better sourced, when the article is literally talking about something that is born from the common public consciousness. There is no objective "correct" here. There is only providing evidence that someone believes something about this rhyme.

It's a bizarre catch-22 that original research that actually demonstrates a hypothesis with objective evidence is rejected on the basis of being unreliable, when all information in the article is built off of glorified opinions that do not in and of themselves have to justify their position. I'm not saying I should be an exception. I'm just noting the irony in that I think I've demonstrated my point far more robustly than any information within the article has, and yet because I, a Wikipedia editor that only became interested in this because of the article in question, am the source of the interpretation of objective data, and therefore it is deemed unreliable. It's strange that Wikipedia relies on what basically amounts to a buddy system, such that someone else can put your personal opinion on Wikipedia as long as you've written it onto a professional-looking web page elsewhere. I'm mostly waxing poetic on the nature of objectivity and evidence here... On that note, you can't prove a negative, so I can never prove that there is literally no information out there. In fact, I know the information is archived on the web in at least one location: scroll up.

I guess if I were arguing for a point here it would be that other editors can judge the methodology and objectivity of the original research for themselves. I think you're both convinced on the basis of n-grams data that i) Magical is not a rare form of the song, and ii) Musical appears to have come first, and the modern attention to the song is correlated with The Simpsons episode Whacking Day - not necessarily causal, but at least correlated. You both, as editors, are acting as peer review (that's what a Talk page is). This very talk page is more robustly questioned and tested than any of the references within the article in terms of standard of evidence. You can repeat my methods outright and see for yourself if the pattern I report is genuine, because I've made the effort to describe them sufficiently for replication. Wikipedia can't act as its own source. But this is a famous nursery rhyme, and this Talk page has become one of the most in-depth investigations on its origins out there, with replicable methodology. Somehow, that's inferior to an unsourced anonymous web page (MedicaLook), a student newspaper article, and a popular news article, none of which probably gave two hoots about the accuracy of the song lyrics or its etymology.

Anyways, I'm done. Primarily because my entire monologue above emphasizes that, if my information is to be added to the page, I cannot be part of that process by definition. You two, or some future random editor can decide what's Wikipedia appropriate. I appreciate the very good reasons behind avoiding original research as a general principle of Wikipedia. It's just a built-in frustration of Wikipedia that logic (including e.g. interpretation of n-grams trends) is not judged for itself, but rather one needs to appeal to an external authority. Even if that external source does not address the question at hand directly, robustly, or in a way that cites original etymological sources or does original research. It's silly that had I written all this in a referenced blog post elsewhere, it would somehow be deemed more credible.

It very definitively cannot be my decision to add this to the web page, so I have nothing more to say. I leave the evidence justifying my position on this Talk page, and others can take up the mantle if they feel it satisfies requirements for reliable information. Cheers, Crawdaunt (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crawdaunt: I understand your frustration, but I hope you don't give up without seeking opinions at WP:RSNB. You never know what might emerge there if others see the issue. At this point I'm opposed to your edit, but I very much welcome other opinions. You are the best person here to present your view at WP:RSNB. Sundayclose (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Good for your heart

In the UK, I've only ever heard this 'beans, beans, good for your heart / The more you eat, the more you fart'. I was surprised not to find it mentioned on the page. For reference, "beans good for your heart" gets 122,000 hits on google compared to "beans the musical fruit" which has 12,000 - only about 10% as many.

(I've tended to assume the USA version is a sanitised alternative) 82.41.9.78 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be added if there's some reputable web page out there that uses those lyrics to cite. As above, my insistence on using e.g. n-grams to justify mentioning the lyrics "the magical fruit" was rejected unilaterally by @Sundayclose:, not necessarily wrongly, but this page hardly has enough editors interested to reach a consensus beyond a vote of say... 2:1. A third party reference is needed to cite possible new lyrics additions without controversy @82.41.9.78:. Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

We have the "good for your heart" version in the US too, but we treat it as a second "verse". Kids would recite that version after the "musical/magical fruit" version, but avoid doing so in the earshot of teachers. We also had the following variation as our second "verse".

Beans, beans are good for your heart, The more you eat, the more you fart, The more you fart, the more you stink. ......(awkward pause of about 5-10 seconds) Beans, beans are good for your heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.202.223 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)