"Christina Aguilera made an astonishing gaffe by botching the lyrics to the American National Anthem as she kicked off the Super Bowl on Sunday night.

The 30-year-old singer performed a throaty rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner to open the NFL championship - but sang incorrect lyrics that matched an error from Wikipedia."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ner-lyrics.html

Some sort of joke about “our fag was still there” but I'm far too PC to make it …

Jon

That would be funny if it were true. But it doesn't seem to be chronologically consistent.

Just once I want somebody to do the 4th verse. Which is where the body is buried.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Super Bowl 2011 : Christina Aguilera sings botched Wikipedia National Anthem

Daily Mail
By Daily Mail Reporter Christina Aguilera made an astonishing gaffe by botching the lyrics to the American National Anthem as she kicked off the Super Bowl …

Indeed, 23:51 was 21 minutes after the scheduled kick-off. To be sure, an earlier edit already mentions her lyrical fuck-up.

Revision as of 23:33, 6 February 2011 (a.k.a. 5:33 p.m. Dallas time)

This content, intended to be serious, lasted until Andrewlp1991 reverted it at 23:50, a minute before a third party changed the lyrics just to be funny.

Look, we have a reliable source that says it's true. You can't refute a reliable source by using original research, still less by citing Wikipedia as a source. Bring two reliable sources that refute the first one, and then we can say "some say ... others say ...".

It's people like you who do original research who cause Wikipedia articles to be (very briefly) unreliable. Fortunately, this sort of nonsense almost always gets reverted within minutes, due to the many experts who watch articles round the clock.

NB: This is sarcastic.

I understand that is sarcasm, but seriously, The Daily Mail is reliable now?

You betcha!

It unquestionably is under Wikipedia's rules, and if you don't like it {{sofixit}}; surely you have the prestige on WP to influence such matters.

And, to be fair, the Mail does have news in, unlike The National Enquirer and suchlike American papers. Yes, it has strong biases, but at least it's honest about them and people know where they are. It doesn't hypocritically pretend to be unbiased, like The Independent, or to be on the side of sweetness and light, like The Guardian (whose legendary editor C. P. Scott must have turned over so often in his grave that his coffin has probably worn out).

We now have another source, The Metro, which says "Her botched lyrics reportedly matched those published on Wikipedia for The Star Spangled Banner, which have since been corrected." Note the good journalism - "reportedly matched" - they had too much sense to look at Wikipedia!

Okay, it's funny even though it isn't true!

Verifiability, not truth! Wikipedia's core sourcing policy.

Wikipedia makes US National Anthem mistake, Christina Aguilera copies and …

ComputerWeekly.com (blog)
Christina Aguilera made a mistake that will probably cost her her life … she took what Wikipedia says for fact. Kicking off the Super Bowl, Aguilera messed …