Talk:Horrible Histories (book series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversy and Criticism

The part on Caligula seems to state for fact that his insanity and making his horse a consul was just a ploy to annoy the senate. "...tried to make his horse a Senator, when in reality he only threatened to do so as an insult to the Senate" However a) the source seems to be off of a site that is one mans opinion and hardly a major controvery and b) Wikipedia's entry for Caligula contradicts this and has an article on his mental and physical health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula#Health and this is a pretty good summary http://www.roman-emperors.org/gaius.htm Here are two articles suggesting that his relationship with Incitatus was out of the ordinary http://www.artbycrane.com/caligula_incinatus.html http://www.horseshowcentral.com/flex/incitatus_caligula/274/1 The fact is 'in reality' it is all theory and speculation and historians certainly do not know fur sure what the truth is and the article should be rewritten to explain such things. Stating that he tried to insult the senate is wrong as there is also evidence to suggest mental illness. Also HH is a kids series of books (and the CBBC version) and is a watered down (albeit very mucky water) comical look at history. In CBBC mad old Gaius Julius is as crazy as bunnies, but no more than Monty Python did to the Romans in Life of Brian. Hardy "A major controversy".

Also, on Richard III. They do not state that Shakespeare made it all up - in fact they share blame between the Bard and Thomas More. Even then, what is King Dick III famous for? Hunchbacked usurper who slyly backstabbed his way to the top and killed the Princes in the Tower. Pretty much sums up the plot of Shakspeares play really. It was the Bard who created the hunchback image he is so famous for as well as "my kingdom for a horse". The two princes seems ot have been Mores idea but even so, Horrible Histories is aimed at kids - and likes to poke fun at obvious targets like the man responsible for them having to learn shakespeare (they will not have learned about More).

Thats it really, just thought that these two points were really out of place and the out of the two only Caligulas claim has a reference. DarkMithras

Can you provide reliable sources to back up your claims (which for the record I agree with, which demonstrate the series' inclusion of wrong facts? Otherwise unfortunately the information may not be added to the article.--Coin945 (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont claim the series included wrong fact, the article did. Rather I was questioning the 'controversies' stated in teh article. Also, to be controversial does there not have to be some kind of base reacion. Margret Thatcher was controversial as is Frankie Boyle - but to my knowledge there was been no outcry over HH and nor any calls for controversy. If anything it is the article needs reliable sources to back up the claims for controversy.

The links I have posted are common knowledge and found in any history book and point out that Horrible Histories were in fact right. Horrible Histories may paint Gaius Julius as a madman, but it is a basic version of history aimed at children. They now know that Henry VIII like to chop and change his wives and Caligula was mad. The article therefore is in error in clainming false controversies.

There have been a couple of errors though, but again errors and not controversies. a) A comic I read once claimed that Henry VIII was responsible for bringing cabbage to England, where it was introduced in the Iron age b) in the TV series they claim in a song that George the 1st died on the toilet which actually it was George II. Again hardly controversies and certainly no point in adding them to wikipedia. Thank you for your response though.DarkMithras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.254 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Illustrator

Horrible Science and Horrible Geography books don't have the same writer of illustrator. Horrible Science (written by Nick Arnold and illustrated by Tony de Saulle) and Horrible Geography (written by Anita Ganeri illustrated by Mike Phillips). So I have made the appropriate changes.Saul Taylor

---

Format

I propose changing the format of the individual book entries, to provide a more direct (kidocentric) jumping off point for our little visitors. Rather than:

• The Awesome Egyptians (1993) - (Ancient Egypt)

I propose:

• The Awesome Egyptians about Ancient Egypt, including Egyptian gods and godesses, the Great Pyramid of Giza, the Sphinx, and lots of Pharaohes. It was published in 1993. ISBN 0590195697.

Comments? -- Finlay McWalter 01:22, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd rather have a mix between the two: The Awesome Egyptians (1993) (Ancient Egypt, including Egyptian gods and godesses, the Great Pyramid of Giza, the Sphinx, andPharaohes.) ISBN 0590195697. Saul Taylor

Yes please! Muriel Victoria 11:22, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Innitially I chose to use the mixed version, but eventually found it was too innificiant as i usually got a bit carried away and made the amount of external links way to great. Now I just go for the simple "Ancient Egypt" or "British Empire", and have changed all these in all the various spin-offs accordingly.--Coin945 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

---

How reliable are the Horrible books in general? I've encountered several things in there that are not mentioned (or are contradicted) in other books, such as the use of tear gas to test gas masks (mentioned in the Blitzed Brits)

---

Oringal Books
1993 Awesome Egyptians (1993) - (Ancient Egypt) - Orange letters on red background
1993 Terrible Tudors (1993) - (Tudor dynasty) - Red letters on yellow background
1994 Blitzed Brits - (The Blitz)
1994 Rotten Romans - (Ancient Rome) - Purple letters on green background
1994 Vicious Vikings - (Vikings) - Yellow letters on violet background
1994 Vile Victorians - (Victorian era) - Red letters on lime green background
1996 Groovy Greeks - (Ancient Greece) - Yellow letters on light blue background
1996 Measly Middle Ages - (Middle Ages) - Yellow letters on dark blue background
1996 Slimy Stuarts - (House of Stuart) - Orange letters on deep purple background
1997 Angry Aztecs - (Aztecs) - light green letters on light blue background
1997 Cut Throat Celts - (Celts) - Yellow letters on dark green background
1998 Frightful First World War - (World War I) - Yellow letters on sea green background
1998 Gorgeous Georgians - (Georgian era) - Purple letters on yellow background
1998 Terrifying Tudors (formerly Even More Terrible Tudors) - (Tudor dynasty)
1999 Savage Stone Age - (Stone age) - Orange letters on blue background
1999 Woeful Second World War - (World War II) - Purple letters on orange background
2000 Incredible Incas - (2000) (Tahuantinsuyu - The Inca Empire) - Black letters on yellow background
2000 Smashing Saxons (2000) - (Saxons) - Grey-blue letters on crimson background
2001 Stormin' Normans - (Normans)
2002 Barmy British Empire - (British Empire)
2003 Ruthless Romans - (Ancient Rome)
2004 Villainous Victorians - (Victorian era)
2006 Awful Egyptians - (Ancient Egypt)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.180.161 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Adding the colours of the book cover is trivia. It has been reverted.--Coin945 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the other imitations/similar titles there is the "what they don't tell you about..." series. Someone might like to include that.

 Done, see "What They Don't Tell You About..."--Coin945 (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Section order

I think the order of the sections should be changed. Why is "Controversy" first? Please decide on an order. Samurai 004 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

List

I find this article reads very much like a list - I think most of the material should be moved to another page.-- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Titles in progress?

I'm wondering what the point of this section is, and where the information is coming from. Tetrahedron93 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rottenromans.JPG

Image:Rottenromans.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Slimystuarts.JPG

Image:Slimystuarts.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Spin-Off

How is Coping With a spin-off of Horrible Histories?? If not, where should it be redirected to? --Coin945 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Francehorrible.JPG

Image:Francehorrible.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Angry Aztecs controversy

Really? Nobody remembers this? It was back around 2002 or 2003. I'm surprised its not mentioned in the article. Note that the article says

"Angry Aztecs (new style) - 2 June
Incredible Incas (new style) - 2 June"

New style..because the books had to be rewritten, or what? Explain. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently, Terry Deary, along with all the other main spin-off series such as Horrible Science, Horrible Geography and Murderous Maths, decided to change the style of the books to make them hip and new. It is all explained in the section in Horrible Histories entitled "Book Makeover".--Coin945 (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of date

Many of the sections of this article are out of date. The part about new book designs speaks about events happening in June 2008 as in the future, and the section about the Exibition is again talking about the past as if it were the future. What can we do to fix up these problems?--Coin945 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coin945 (talk • contribs)

Too close together

I've noticed that in this article the lists of some sections are all bunched up. It must be someone forgetting to put bullet points -*.

e.g.

The Awesome Egyptians The Ruthless Romans The Frightful First World War The Woeful Second World War Between 8 and 14 September 2007, the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph gave away 7 new Horrible Histories audiobooks, again read by Terry Deary and adapted from his books. They were:

The Villainous Victorians The Savage Stone Age The Angry Aztecs The Incredible Incas The Cut Throat Celts The Groovy Greeks The Barmy British Empire

I'm going to change it ASAP. Little.miss.sunshine (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)==Biased Material==

I removed a section under 'Controversy' written by a user called 'Ian Mursell', giving a link to a critique of the Angry Aztecs. Ian Mursell works for the Mexicolore company who wrote the critique.

This was the section I removed:

Members of the artefacts-based teaching team Mexicolore remain unhappy with "The Angry Aztecs" for its historical exaggerations, distortions and sensationalist approach to this ancient civilisation. The team spends many hours regularly correcting misinformation from the book picked up by primary school children in England studying the Aztecs (KS2 History). Deary simply hasn't got a good word to say for the Aztecs in the entire book! For a critique of the book, please go to [10]

I didn't think it appropriate for an encylopaedic entry to publicise a self-written critique. The tone was also too informal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.255.185 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

TV Series

I can't find anything about the popular TV series on Wikipedia, there have been 2 series and there isn't any info on it here. It is a major CBBC programme and iPlayer proves it is currrently the most popular. There were 13 episodes in Series 1 and there will be another 13 in the new series.

TV Series

I can't find anything about the popular TV series on Wikipedia, there have been 2 series and there isn't any info on it here. It is a major CBBC programme and iPlayer proves it is currrently the most popular. There were 13 episodes in Series 1 and there will be another 13 in the new series. 86.184.16.253 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tirelessly and time-consumingly compiled a gigantic list of sources for all the various aspects of the "horrible" franchise. The sources you are looking for are under "Horrible Histories Live Action". If you are serious about writing sections for the article (i would myself but i have no time), then please do. Remember to keep it from being a fan-guide or an advertisement, as regrettably it has already become (I'll have to rectify that soon...).--Coin945 (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing issues

now I know for a fact there was a magazine issue called Prehistoric pests, but it isn't in the magazine list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.11.196 (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry guys, this is a horrible science issue. my bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.11.196 (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

Given the 'multiple issues' tag I have been bold and done a prelim clean up and taken off the tags for now. The edits are explained in the edit summaries. I have addressed the poor copy editing, non NPOV, removed non-free images, put together the works list from listings scattered throughout the article, added quote boxes, added wikilinks and fixed ref links (though there are still many bare urls). There is a concision of the 'other languages' section. I merged the 'reception' and stand alone 'criticism' sections as controversy sections are not encouraged. There were many individual's quotes praising HH but not citing separate laudable aspects of the series, so in some cases I excised the direct quote and clustered their references, to avoid repetition. In some cases the same quotes were used in 'reception' and 'critical response'. I also removed a long list of external links to single sentences in Googlebooks listed under "books with information", although this info, for the most part, was one line. I've added no new text, apart from copy editing. I think the article is well referenced with strong sources and covers a lot of ground. Best wishes. Span (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your hard work. You have really helped in giving this article new life, and allowed it to grow and flourish.--Coin945 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, can you have another look through? Just having a skim read, there are some sentences that don't make sense e.g "He views himself as kid who wants to share facts with other kids who wishes to "entertain first and inform second". Deary does not respect authors who follow each extreme.". Thanks :).--Coin945 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'll copy edit again - after five hours editing the eyes start to glaze. Other eyes are welcome. Thanks for all the work you have put into this Coin, a labour of love, no doubt. Enjoy the weekend. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself. This article is one which I have invested many many hours into, and I am sooo appreciative to you for investing a lot of your own time in an article, which perhaps you previously knew nothing about, in order to help me out. Although I am in year 12, and rather busy, I will try to help you out where I can.--Coin945 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC) P.S, you've probably seen this already but just to state the obvious, there is a link to a peer view for this article at the top of the talk page.--Coin945 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: Right now, I think the direction of this Horrible Histories article is a bit muddled up. It originally served as just an article about the book series, but has now grown into an article which is more about the series as a whole, with a huge list of books shoved in the middle. What is your opinion on where we should go with this?--Coin945 (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's great that Wikipedia has such committed younger editors. I'm sure you must be up to your ears in year 12. I turned up here as a fan of the TV series, not through the peer review notification, though that is always welcome. I mostly work with the articles of poets and novelists. I had been thinking about the article titling, myself. What I recommend is this: copy over the magazine listing to 'other media'. The Theatre listing, under 'Works', seems pretty partial and there seems to have been a tonne of plays, Proms, etc. to list. So I would take that out. I'm not sure there is much to be served by having a full listing of all national performances (also I'm not sure where you would get a comprehensive list and how to keep it up to date). Maybe develop a prose section in 'other media' on the HH in theatre, much like this article - detailing the key figures in the development, critical response etc. I would bring Gory Stories from 'other media' over to books and add other books that might not be currently listed. I would add re-direct links at the top of this article and at the top of the works section to 'HH other media' and take out the current 'other media' listings, which just redirects anyway. Then you are left with info about books, essentially. This article seems to be basically prose with a works listing. 'Other media' seems to be basically a list (which is fine). So, I would keep the exhibition discussion here. What are your thoughts? I am happy to keep working on it. All best wishes for the week. Span (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oooo, wow another fan! Awesome :) --Coin945 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I just ask why you think the magazine section should be in the HH 2009 series article?--Coin945 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I do know that HH had a prom yesterday, and it's already gotten some reviews already. Hmmm.. in my opinion, I don't think it would be merely a huge list of concerts/stage shows/proms etc. Theoretically there should be enough info to warrant each of those things at least a paragraph..--Coin945 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sounds like a lot of work, lol. I'll do what I can. Thanks, you too. Oh, by the way, where are you from (if you don't mind me asking)?--Coin945 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. There is a link here to the HH prom which aired yesterday, in case you wanted to listen to it. I've only listened to a bit so far but it's very good! [1]--Coin945 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I meant transferring magazines to 'other media'. What are your thoughts on the other transfer ideas? I did hear the prom live on Radio 3 - much fun, though pretty hard to hear all the lyrics. Span (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I do like the idea of developing the theatre section which at the moment is quite lackluster. there are many available sources so taht one shouldn't be too hard. I agree that currently the "other media" section is very superfluous. I can't help feeling that HH other media is a very very confused article, and I think we should work on giving it a direction rather than just being a miscellaneous list of things within the HH franchise. I think that if this article is just on the books, then the exhibitions on the books should be fine. I also think that the reception section shouldn't have anything about the TV series.--Coin945 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1