Talk:Monty Python

Talk:Monty Python/archive1 — All discussion predating 1 Jan 2006. Includes miscellaneous questions and discussion on cleanup since resolved.

New section: Cultural Influence of Monty Python

On reviewing the main article, I noticed a

tag added to the section called Things named after Monty Python. This requested the placement of any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles. On consideration of this, and the sections for Pythonesque and World Record Holders, I realised that what these sections were collectively about, is the influence of Monty Python on culture.

There is little doubt that Monty Python has an influence on various aspects of culture. However, since there was no section pertaining to this, I created one.

Having done this, I then subsumed the aforenamed sections within this. I put the World Record Holders at top, simply to allow for a natural flow from the discussion of use of the term 'Pythonesque' in the language, to other uses in the language, which further indicates the degree to which Monty Python has permeated aspects of culture. I hope this has been of some assistance, and that it allows for contributions that help flesh out, or at least give pointers to, this cultural influence.Wotnow (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Not six comedians.

Monty Python isn't agroup of six comedians, it's a group of five, hence one is deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.14.106 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The adventures of John?

Is this a real film? I've been unable to find any references to it anywhere else. Also, I don't know how to sign my comments, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.29.128 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've counted 4 different reasons for the "Monty Python" name here

One in opening, a few in the middle and a different one from the rest in the triva section.

And why does everything sound all "Britishy"?

At the risk of stating the obvious - They're a British group, centered in Britain, comprised mostly of Brits, working for a terriably British institution and the story of the group takes place largely in Britain. Couple with this the fact that a lot of the people contributing are British, and I think you have yer answer. We could americanise it by throwing in a few cowboys and a car chase. And they can all keep calling each other "Assholes". We'd have to remove any aspect of comedy from the article but I think we could swing it. What do you think?--Crestville 14:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it!

I suggest you have a look at Talk:The Beatles where you will note that there is a template for a notice including commenting that the article is being written in "British English", since the subject matter is British. Whilst there are a few, usually well meaning, queries most contributors respect it. (It should be noted that Wiki policy allows articles with a particular cultural origin to be written in the grammer of that culture.)Please feel free to adapt it if you think it helps.LessHeard vanU 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Another meaning behind the name "Monty Python"

Doesn't "Monty" mean "nude" in British slang? -as in going "the full monty", just like the movie of the same name? And "Python", isn't that slang for a penis? So doesn't that mean they were called the Naked Penis Circus? This fits in with their pushing of boundaries for the era that they produced the show in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.8.197 01:09 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No it does not mean that. "The full monty" means "the whole way", i.e. with nothing missing (e.g. pure unadulterated alcohol). The usage in the movie, "The Full Monty", is in line with this definition as an indication of how far the stripping went.

If the word has come to mean "nude", it is as a direct result of what happened in the movie. "Monty" had no such meaning at the time of "Monty Python's Flying Circus". As for your suggested alternative meaning of "Python", that's just your imagination at work, and it has no basis in fact. Figaro 13:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So if Monty Python came to mean "Nude Penis" only in 1997, yet they were named that in 1968, then they must have *really* been ahead of their times. 99.67.239.69 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The name "Monty" was chosen in honour of Field Marshall Montgomery? Are you sure? Whenever I have heard any of the Python team being interviewed they have always said that the name was just chosen from a long list of random surreal ones that they just thought up, I've never heard any of them suggest that the name had anything to do with Montgomery, and it seems fairly unlikely to me because it's too literal and obvious. Montgomery was well known as "Monty" , and the Pythons would have been far more likely to choose something surreal and weird. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.94.247 12:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing with your remarks linking "Monty Python" with Montgomery? Obviously your comments were not directed at me, because I never made any such suggestion — and, as far as I can see, neither did anybody else. So it must be your own idea — and, therefore, yourself, who you are arguing with. Figaro 09:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone did because it's in paragraph 4 of the main article. But in any case, Michael Palin confirmed when interviewed by Michael Parkinson on BBC that the name was simply a random one. They wanted to call the show "someone's" Flying Circus. "Python" as a surname sounded suitably silly, and the first name "Monty", according to Palin, made them fall about laughing so they went with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.21.215 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you view this interview with Michael Palin he explains it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNo4ai0BDYM&feature=channel. "Python" was something they came up with as a suitably silly surname, and Eric Idle seemed to like the first name "Monty". It was nothing to do with Montgomery. Stan Pomeray, 3.01.2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.154.54 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

John Cleese expelled from Clifton

I have a feeling that this is an urban legend. Does anyone have a reliable reference?

No such event is alluded to The Pythons' Autobiography. The relevant line in John Cleese's section simply states, "After I'd gone to Clifton for five years, I came back to Weston[-super-Mare] and taught at the same prep school I'd attended as a boy." He later says that he finished at Clifton at the the age of eighteen. He also describes the plays in which he took part, in which "there was never any sense of doing it for anything other than fun" and that he "liked the experience of being part of a team". I think it's fairly safe to consign this to the drawer marked 'Urban Legends'. Chris 42 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it from the article. Chris 42 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It says the same thing in the article about John Cleese. Should it be removed there as well? BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency between this page and John Cleese page

This page says that his name was changed from Cheese when his father joined the army in WWII ("Born on October 27, 1939 in Weston-Super-Mare, England, Cleese’s surname had originally been Cheese. His father, however, had the name changed to Cleese when he joined the army during WWII.") However, the John Cleese entry says that his father changed the name upon entering the army in 1915, which would be WWI ("His family's surname was previously "Cheese", but his father, an insurance salesman, changed his surname to "Cleese" upon joining the army in 1915.") This also implies he was born as Cleese, and that the change was made before he was born. I don't know which is accurate, but I think one of the statements is wrong.

You're absolutely right, it is. According to the Python biography and the interview with John Cleese on the Fawlty Towers DVD, it's WWI. Cleese's father was relatively advanced in age by the time Cleese was born - too old to have been in the Army. Also, the claim that Cleese made a cameo in Series Four is absolutely incorrect. I've watched Series Four (indeed, all 45 episodes) many times and have never seen Cleese make a cameo in that fourth season - although his wife, Connie Booth, whom Cleese claims to have been a reason he left the series (he supposedly wanted to work more with her, and did on Fawlty Towers four years later), does appear in the episode "Hamlet." I can also find no support for the claim that the series title was changed to "Monty Python." If nobody can present any, I'll be happy to fix the page.JCaesar 06:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The book Monty Python Speaks by David Morgan refers to Cleese leaving the show and taking the circus with him as the new title became simply Monty Python. I believe it was mentioned in Kim "Howard" Johnson's book as well. IrishGuy 16:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Accents

It seems to me (silly American that I am) that each one of the Python troupe had a characteristic speaking accent. Was Eric Idle supposed to be Cockney and John Cleese supposed to be upper class or something? Did each Python speak with his usual voice or did some/all put on stage accents? I'm pretty completely in the dark about all this, so if it's just rubbish feel free to ignore it. 64.48.193.107 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

They would usually put on a differant voice (be it through accent, pitch, etc.) Idle occasionally played cockney characters, but then so did they all. Likewise, Cleese would often play upperclass charcters, but not always. They all had a wide variety of characters and therefore voices.--Crestville 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would deem most Python voices as caricatures (Cleese would portray the "thicko" just as much as the "upper class twit of the year" type) depending on the type of sketch. They would sometimes use their "real" voices for comic effect in scenes of otherwise nonsensical unreality. Palin and Idle were perhaps least likely to affect a speaking style, unless they were in drag (which is confusingly reasonable, I suppose!)LessHeard vanU 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I was trying to say, but I don't speak good England.--Crestville 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

MUSIC FOR THE CYCLING TOUR

Hi, does anyone know the name (and composer) of the orchestral waltz used as the underscore music in The Cycling Tour (episode 34 of the TV series). Cheers, Musicmaker 11:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

About Grammar

I noticed that there is a regular inconsistency regarding quotes. Punctuation such as the period and comma, and Question Mark, have appeared either inside or outside quotes. Is it typical for these types of punctuation to be outside of quotes in the Queen's English? This is the only conclusion I have, and I believe if it is true, then the article needs to be edited in 'U.K.' style. Anybody concur?--Jimcripps 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Concert for George

I am not very knowledgable on what went behind Monty Python's appearance at the Concert for George tribute. Perhaps if any of you chaps feel you know enough about the subject, you could add something about that. Among the things I am not certain of is if any Python has gone into why Cleese did not take part. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilikeburritos (talk • contribs) .

Image:MontyPythonCast.jpg

The above image is about to be deleted, as it fails the criteria for fair use. If anyone can find something more suitable, that would be lovely. The BBC website, where this image was originally sourced from, statesthe following:

You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.

Great. We need something better. Unless we can gain "prior written permission"... riana but of course i'm listening 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard as the 7th Python

It has him listed as a devoted fan and an occasional stand in... would mentioning his surrealism in comparison to the Pythons be worth mentioning?--Artega 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid fact - though he is obviously not alone in having been influenced. I think that reference belongs in either of two places. The article about izzard himself. And - in relation to the Pythons - perhaps in a list of comedic performers who have acknoweldged them as an influence - eg the South Park creators. Davidpatrick 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Associate Pythons

Very good and valid to add Douglas Adams. Disagree about listing "Associate Pythons" in alphabetical order. If there were a lot of names - it might make sense. But with very few - it is much more appropriate to list them in some sort of sequence of import and significance to the Python canon.

If listed alphabetically Adams (who co-wrote just 2 skits) and Connie Booth (who appeared in a few) are listed above Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland who both became integral to the Pythons. Innes in their stage shows, films and records (plus the last TV series). Cleveland on the TV shows, stage shows and films. Both of them have multiple credits and appearances - and logically they should be listed before Adams and Booth. Davidpatrick 14:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's keep the current (non alphabetical) order. CWL 18:51, 16 September 2006 (CET)

I have added "Other Contributors" to the "Associate Pythons" caption as the latter expression in principle only refers to Cleveland and Innes. C-w-l 11:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Pythons

In reference to the above discussion regarding the order of Associate Pythons - in what order are the actual Pythons currently listed and what is the reason? CWL 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. I don't see any particular logic governing the current sequence. Since the Pythons didn't grow out of a single member's vision - eg as the Beatles evolved from Lennon's first band - there is no "first member" per se. In this particular section - ie the 6 Pythons - i think they should be in alphabetical. Unless someone has a better idea. Davidpatrick 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with alphabetical. C-w-l 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So do I. Figaro 11:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to agree, I just changed it. Garion96 (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Two souls, one thought. :-) C-w-l 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it too. I guess this time you were in the edit conflict. Usually that's me :) Garion96 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Pythons saw themselves as being equal to each other Python; thus, they were always listed alphabetically in the credits. --Wack'd About Wiki 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be listed as they were in the show? In the credits of every show, it went Chapman, Cleese, Idle, Jones, Palin, Gilliam, which isn't alphabetical. Wouldn't it make more sense to list them the way they did? BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Two Idles

"That left Idle in his own corner, considered to be a sensible position in view of the arcane nature of his work, and Idle." One of the two has to go and maybe Gilliam take his place. Hoverfish 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a pun, you know, Idle wasn't working hard on his own -- he was idle. ;) Anyway, Irishguy took care of it. Banaticus 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox padding

Hi Crestville, I experimented a bit with padding and tested for Firefox, IE and Opera compatibility. Wiki seems to have a disproportionate default left and bottom padding for framed images in boxed content, which is hard to diminish. Even the way it is now, the box frame is a bit too large. Hoverfish 08:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon?--Crestville 11:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just used some detailed styling to center the image in the infobox and since it was your work I thought I'd let you know I messed with it (compare the versions to see what I mean). Hoverfish 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ta very much.--Crestville 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Shit" inaccuracy?

According to this article, Chapman was the first to say "shit" on British television, but according to the eulogy that Cleese delivered, *Cleese* was "very proud to be the first person to say 'shit' on British television." --Whit 19:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Link doesn't work-video's been deleted. (Curvebill 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Incorrect. In Chapman's eulogy, Cleese was speaking for Chapman when he said that. Basically, he was voicing what he thought Chapman would have said to him had he been alive. BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Whit. When listening to Cleese's speech, I hear: "(...)'All right Cleese', he was saying, 'you're very proud of being the very first person ever to say shit on British television'(...)". However, it is not clear in the article whether Cleese or Chapman said it. The passage in the article reads:

At Chapman's memorial service, Cleese delivered the irreverent speech he felt his co-writer would have wanted: after declaring "Good riddance to the freeloading bastard, I hope he fries!", he announced that, having been the first person to say “shit” on British television, Chapman would never have forgiven him had he missed the opportunity to become “the first person ever at a British memorial service to say 'fuck'.

This either means that Chapman was the first to say "shit" and wouldn't forgive Cleese if he didn't say "fuck", or that Cleese was the first one to say it and that Chapman wouldn't forgive him if he didn't follow through and say "fuck" also. Qopzeep (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section changes

I have moved Trivia entries to their related articles (to Monty Python's Flying Circus and to Always Look on the Bright Side of Life in their Trivia sections), without evaluating as for their inclusion or not in Wikipedia (as unencyclopedic, etc). If anyone wants to revert, please read the above entry first and also "Avoid trivia sections in articles". Also I created a section named "Things named after Monty Python" and moved there some related items from Trivia. If the title is not appropriate, please change it to a better one. As for the trivia entries left, I simply don't know where it is best to move them, so if anyone does, please help clean up the article. --Hoverfish 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why the retained trivia should be there in such case. The items which were deleted seemed just as relevant to me. I say either retain all or delete all. Consistency, please!

I agree with you. As I write above, the rest of the trivia should also go to a more relevant page, but I haven't found the proper place yet. I am reluctant to simply delete them (moving is not the same as deleting), but consistency will come soon. Hoverfish 13:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) --There goes, moved to Flying Circus trivia, no more trivia section here. Please, remember to sign. Hoverfish 14:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Slight rewrite

I've done a general rewrite on a lot of sections, tightening up the style and adding some new information. I didn't finish the whole article - if everyone thinks what I've done is too bold, feel free to revert, but a lot of it is unchanged (and I didn't touch the formatting).

There's still a lot wrong with this article, though. It still creaks a bit in terms of style, and a lot of the problems listed above still need to be corrected. The biography section just doesn't work: there's very little information on the lives of the members, and a lot of repetition of stuff that's already been covered. Also, because the entries are mostly about that member's writing style, there's a lot of overlap between the Palin one and the Jones one, and the same with Cleese and Chapman. Strikes me that this is a pretty good article that could be very good indeed if someone does a bit of spade-work on it. I didn't want to change too much myself, as I've already rewritten large chunks of it MrBronson 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Life of Brian

"When Jesus does appear in the film (as he does on two occasions, first in the stable, and then later speaking the Beatitudes (Matt 5:1-48)), he is played straight (by British actor Kenneth Colley) - the comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statement “Blessed are the Peacemakers” (“I think he said, 'blessed are the cheesemakers'”)." Jesus also appears a third time as Brian is carrying the cross with the other people to be executed. Jesus is selling crosses on a stall, when he offers to lighten a condemned man’s burden, who then runs off leaving Jesus to carry the cross and be executed. – if no one objects I will edit this sometime next week. --Radioactive turnip 12:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the character played by Terry Jones, that's not Jesus, it's Simon of Cyrenia. Check your bible (or like me, cast your mind back to tedious sunday school classes). Simon was the guy who offered to help Jesus carry his cross... some early Christian sects actually believed that Simon was mistakenly crucified in Jesus' place - which is probably where the Pythons got the idea for this gag (they'd been doing loads of research into Biblical times and this story could have appealed to their sense of humour). Then again, it's been a while since I saw the film, so I might be wrong. MrBronson 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Reckon you're right, MrBronson (may I call you Chuck?). Pretty certain the 'real' JC is only on screen twice... Cheers, Ian Rose 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall him ever seen in a stable at all. If you're talking about the opening scene, with the three wise men, wasn't he supposedly in the manger, but couldn't actually be seen? BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Support claims of inspiration with references?

Shouldn't a claim of anything besides commonly held beliefs and scientific facts be supported by some sort of references?

This is a question about the Monty Python wiki as much as it is about wikipedia itself.

I'm noticing a trend where obvious fans of a person/product/service make universal claims about the subject with no citations to back up their position.

It's one thing to state the known and irrefutable facts about a subject like Monty Python. It's an entirely other thing to say that the subject is highly regarded as blah blah blah. Who regards the subject as that? I don't. So, how many people did it take for the author to determine it's a "highly" regarded belief?

Sorry... I'll give you an example. In this article, there were several such instances, but the last one I noticed before writing this was the statment that South Park was inspired by Gilliam's work on Monty Python.

This may or may not be fact, and until you can cite an interview where the South Park creators made this statement, then you can't post it as truth. It's only an opinion. And quite possibly, only the opinion of one person - the author of the wiki. The mere fact that the two productions have cut-out animation in common does NOT mean that the South Park animators have ever even SEEN Monty Python.

Sorry for the rant. But the more and more wikipedia poses articles that are filled with gushy unsupported claims, the more it will turn into a discarded fan site run by some 15 yr old.

I know I have seen a interwiev with the makers of south park saying this.Can anyone find a link?

BTW since this is about Monty Python, earbuckels and snowhead, thats right, fistcleaning and morebread. Thank you everyone, thank :you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.19.122 (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

The South Park guys contributed an interview and a South Park-does-Python skit to the BBC's 30th anniversary TV special in 1999. In the interview they spoke about how much they have been influenced by Python. The skit was a spoof on the Dead Parrot skit - featuring the South Park characters. Looking for a link. But it's not in doubt. It's also on the DVD of the TV special. Davidpatrick 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

another reference

Possibly another useful reference: Monty Python : a chronological listing of the troupe’s creative output, and articles and reviews about them, 1969-1989 / by Douglas L. McCall. (1991) phoebe 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve Martin: A Python Fan?

Steve Martin hosted 20 Years of Python: Parrot Sketch Not Included. He was also a Python fan. Even though he said in the show that he said that it was was crazy and stupid to say that he loved them. Fact or fiction? Maybe somebody knows.

Category or box

I have just created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_referred_to_in_the_works_of_Monty_Python and would like to add a box or category to every article that is referenced in it. I was thinking of a small box that says "The subject of this article is mentioned in the works of Monty Python". Can you please tell me how to create such a box and whether I should just make it a category. If so, then how do I make a new category? Johnalexwood 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference to reunion in info box

There has never been a full reunion per se as that term is commonly used in the entertainment world. The 5 surviving members gathered on stage for a tribute evening in Aspen at the HBO comedy festval in 1998. But it was primarily a salute - not a performance. In 1999 4 of the 5 did a couple of skits together as linking material for the BBC 30th anniversary TV special. In 2003 the survivng members were in the same theater for the premiere of Eric Idle's Spamalot. None of those gatherings constitute a reunion. Certainly not suffice to be listed in the info box. Should be referenced in the article itself. Perhaps in a self-contained section. Davidpatrick 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• In 2002 they performed at the Concert for George (Harrison). I think it should be in there. Call it Partial reunions then. Yannick Ouwehand 15:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree these occasional one-off get-togethers should be noted. But in the article itself. Perhaps a separate little section listing all such occasions. But these ad-hoc appearances are not "reunions" or even "partial reunions" such as that is understood. If they had done a tour or series of events or a film - that would be a "reunion" that would warrant being in the info box. But occasional one-off appearances are not real reunions. Davidpatrick 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Film detail

Guys, does anyone else think we have too much detail on Life of Brian here, considering it has its own article? Three paragraphs should be more than enough to summarise things here, as it is with Holy Grail and Meaning of Life. Anyone have serious objections to culling some of it here, merging anything unique (very little I'd say) with the main Brian article? Speak now... Cheers, Ian Rose 06:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here?

This was a pretty good article at one point, but recently someone seems to have been through it and rewritten large chunks without adding any new information. Furthermore, the rewriting has destroyed the flow, introducing spelling errors and poor syntax. I did a massive cleanup on this article a few months ago - does anyone have the energy to do another one? MrBronson 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've described a related problem at Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus#Blancmange (Monty Python TV) - do problems reflect end of an era?.

If so, what a great show run, eh? :) Milo 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of people/troupes influenced by Python

Prospectively way way too many to be shown in an infobox - and far far too subjective an issue anyway. Showing a list of people who influenced THEM is easy and can be backed up. Putting a list inside an infobox (which is intended to be for verifiable facts) of those that they influenced is asking for trouble. You could have dozens of names. What qualifies as "influenced"? The entertainer's opinion that he/she was influenced? The opinion of a critic? A wikipedia editor? All too sketchy for an infobox. By all means create a section in the article of people/groups who MAY have been influenced by Python.

Here are a few to consider: Not the Nine O'Clock News, Rowan Atkinson, Douglas Adams, South Park, Eddie Izzard, Fry and Laurie Davidpatrick 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pythons and Coconuts

Here be a User block for Python fans!

This user is a fan of Monty Python, and has faced the Killer Rabbit!

Wikiproject Proposal

I have proposed a Monty Python Wikiproject at the Wikiproject proposal page and add your name to interested users. I look forward to starting the project asap. Ganfon 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Turns out there already is a WikiProject...but it is currently inactive, and poorly constructed.

Four films or Five

I see in the introductory text above the table of contents that there have been 5 Monty Python films, but the films section only names 4. Is there a mistake in the introductory text, or has a movie been left out from the films section? --Steve Kroon 09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. The intro says 5 and the infobox names them. The one missing from the Films section is Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl. Don't see why it shouldn't get a subsection of its own under Films. Not offering to do it myself, mind... Cheers, Ian Rose 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal

I think the world of Monty Python is big enough to warrant having its own portal, however, I don’t know how to go about creating a portal or what the criteria are for doing so.

Proposed deletion of Architects Sketch

The separate article on the has been proposed for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Architects_Sketch There are other articles on individual sketches. If this one is to be retained it will probably need to be cleaned up. Kablammo 09:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jabberwocky

was this a monty python film or just from one of the residents? Jabberwocky (1977)

Main article: Monty Python Jabberwocky

A movie about a poor farmer named Dennis who ends up invulountery slaying the Jabberwocky and marrying the princess.

Jabberwocky (film) was not a Monty Python film. Although some Python members worked on it, Palin, Jones and of course Terry Gilliam the director. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Books

There's no information about the series of Monty Python books. Does anyone have any information? Julian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juliankaufman (talk • contribs) 07:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Articles proposed for deletion

There are currently five articles about or related to Monty Python sketches being considered for deletion:

• Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election (deletion discussion)
• Medical Love Song (deletion discussion)
• Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism (deletion discussion)
• Silly Job Interview (deletion discussion)
• Sit on My Face (deletion discussion)

__meco 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Knight's Chicken

The chicken carried by the Knight is most definitely not rubber, but a real, plucked, dead one. If it wasn't being used to move silly sketches on it would be pushing up the daisies. I've amended this page, and the subsequently-affected Rubber Chicken page. From Monty Python's Flying Circus – Just The Words, vol 1, p33; Methuen, 1990 (How To Recognise Different Types of Trees From Quite A Long Way Away):

After a few seconds he sees that the rest of the court are staring at him in amazement and he loses momentum rapidly, almost as rapidly as he loses confidence and dignity. At last he subsides. Our knight in armour walks up to the counsel and hits him with the traditional raw chicken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.169.3 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Influenced" section

"Douglas Adams and Eddie Izzard are widely seen as their most direct heirs" - is there a source for this? Sounds like someone's personal opinion HairyDan (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JonesPalinIdle.jpg

Image:JonesPalinIdle.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) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reunion.JPG

Image:Reunion.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) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

John Cleese vs. Eric Idle

The bits in "Post Python Reunions" about Eric Idle vs John Cleese do not track. Which reunion feature Eddie Izzard standing in for Eric Idle? Eddie Izzard appeared at the Aspen reunion instead of Ghraham Chapman. Also, if they were so angry with each other after 1990, why is John Cleese in Eric Idle's film Splitting Heirs in 1993? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.149.63.203 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Python industrial films?

Where do the Python industrial films fit in? The Birds Eye Pea Company or the Harmony hairspray ones? -Wikianon (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lyn Ashley

I noticed Lyn Ashley's name with the other contributors in the box on the bottom of the page. I mean no disrespect to Ms. Ashley, but does she really need to be there? According to her imdb profile, she only appeared in 5 episodes, and they were all very small roles. It seems to me that she shouldn't be included with the likes of Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland, unless she contributed in some way that I am not aware of. I think it is sufficient to simply mention, on her own page, that she has had roles on Monty Python. Does anyone else think her name should be taken off the other contributors list? Yarrachel (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrs Idle

In many episodes of Flying Circus, a "Mrs. Idle" is credited as a 7th Python, along with Carol Cleveland, Connie Booth, etc. Is this Eric Idle's wife, or mother - or himself? Anyone knows? --Midasminus (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Four Yorkshiremen

Just removed this from the list of notable sketches in the section about the TV series. It's a common misconception, but this sketch, while undoubtably a classic, is not from any episode of Flying Circus, but actually had its birth in At Last the 1948 Show (which, of course, did feature Cleese and Chapman, hence the understandable confusion.)

Elsewhere, I have gone through the article, mostly performing a structural cleaning up (either just the structure of individual sentences, or of particular paragraphs). About three or four pieces of information have been added, mostly to the sections on the films and the individual members - but they're not Earth-shattering. Most don't need any outside verification. Slightly more oblique references have been taken care of with footnote links. (Some of these are really just slight - but sometimes necessary - expansions on what was already here e.g. mentioning that Terry Jones' cancer scare did not last long. The article previously gave the impression that it still afflicted him.) Also felt that it was more appropriate to mention South Park instead of a Franz Ferdinand video in the 'Pythonesque' section.

Also, with regards, Palin's 'retirement' from comedy. I am sure he has declared something along those lines (after all he hasn't done anything on this front since Fierce Creatures in 1997), but I cannot find a written source just yet. I'll keep looking.

Kisbie (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The end of Flying Circus (in Canada)

Prior to being on PBS in the US, Monty Python's was sold to the public broadcaster CBC in Canada. I recall as do others on the net( [1] ) seeing episodes in the summer of 1970 or 1971 initially on Saturday evenings during the summer then later on (after the CBC became uneasy with the shows' content) it was shown well after the evening news. Eventually the CBC canceled showing the series in 1972 ( [2] ) resulting in street protests that Eric Idle mentions in an interview many years later ( [3] ). The first Americans (in the U.S.) therefore to see it broadcast were those living close enough to the Canada-US border to receive one of the first CBC transmissions.

I also recall one of the cast members (some years after the breakup) joking in an (TV?) interview that Canada and India were the first to buy the show outside the UK which was much appreciated though apparently the Indians were disappointed at not seeing any circus acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.23 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "MBC piece" :
  • {{cite web | last = Museum of Broadcast Communications | title = Monty Python's Flying Circus | url = http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/montypython/montypython.htm }}
  • x

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Terry Gilliam Elephants.jpg

The image Image:Terry Gilliam Elephants.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Gibberish

The following gibberish has been removed. As a native English speaker I can't make head or tail of it. Moreover, I believe that the expression "The Full Monty" predates 1969.

While the name origin has been romanticized to great lenghts,the popular jokes on the Marshall famous moonings and shenanigans,did produce the use of other expression "The full Monty" as a more euphemistic way to declare the obvious answer to the aides de camp's insiders' joke, "Have you seen the Field Marshall's Pet already?".Self Irreverence intended on Great Britain's Might,very much in accordance with the Sixties' times and attitudes.

Rob Burbidge (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Many segments of the show mention Freemasonry in ways that are very unusual for an average television series. [4] ADM (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Monty Python/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The latter part of the article consists entirely of listcruft. This has to be cleaned up, either by creating sub-articles or by converting the lists into coherent prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are too few inline citations, as attested by reference tags.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First broadcast in US?

The article says "In 1975 the series was first broadcast in the United States." Is that correct - I seem to remember seeing it on PBS about 1970-72. (My memory may be wrong.) Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 14:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert by RepublicanJacobite

What exactly are you questioning as "uncited and unexplained"? That a contemporary photo of Neil Innes with several Pythons was added to his section? That Innes was and is instrumental behind The Rutles and their mockumentary All you need is cash with the intense participation of several Pythons? That I broke up that huge paragraph into several smaller ones? I hope you're not gonna remove that photo from other articles I've put it in. Also, due to the revert the photo of Carol Cleveland again messes up the section's layout. --79.193.29.33 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You made a long series of edits with little to no explanation in your edit summaries. Furthermore, as this is the article about the Pythons, and not the Ruttles, detailed information about the latter should be in the appropriate article. The Cleveland picture can be moved again if it is interfering with the section layout. But, all edits should have an explanatory edit summary. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I elaborated on the many ties between the Pythons and The Rutles, particularly in personnel (and I added some qualifying attributes; such as making clear that All you need is cash is a mockumentary movie), and thus explained why the Pythons and The Rutles are significant in each other's histories. No Pythons, no Rutles. In fact, The Rutles even originated from an Eric Idle sketch. --79.193.29.33 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the great majority of that belongs in The Rutles article, not here, and it needs attribution. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Noël Coward - Inspiration for Monty Python's Flying Circus?

Some time ago, I found this article with the letter of Terry Jones. This letter was, as the author of the article says, sent to the organizers of the event created to celebrate 40 years of the first Monty Python's episode. Celebration took place in Pancevo, Serbia.

In the letter, Terry Jones says that Monty Python's Flying Circus was created in Serbia "when six Oxford and Cambridge students gathered to raise a monument to Noël Coward. Endless debate on how should the sculpture look like and should it be raised in Vojvodina lasted until the morning, when the agreement was finally made to transform the debate into a TV sketch, but without mentioning writer's name..."

Magazine in which this article appeared is pretty serious one, but I couldn't find any other documents about this letter or the mention of roots of Monty Python. I should also note that in the letter, Terry says that students gathered "on a beautiful April day in the middle of June", which makes me wonder if this letter is joke or not.

Anyone has any data on this?

"Shit" inaccuracy (2)

I know it's against custom to start a new section when there is one dealing with it already, but the original section is pushed back so far that it has lost all attention.

When listening to Cleese's speech, I hear: "(...)'All right Cleese', he was saying, 'you're very proud of being the very first person ever to say shit on British television'(...)" (Example here). However, it is not clear in the article whether Cleese or Chapman said it. The passage in the article reads:

At Chapman's memorial service, Cleese delivered the irreverent speech he felt his co-writer would have wanted: after declaring "Good riddance to the freeloading bastard, I hope he fries!", he announced that, having been the first person to say “shit” on British television, Chapman would never have forgiven him had he missed the opportunity to become “the first person ever at a British memorial service to say 'fuck'.

This either means that Chapman was the first to say "shit" and wouldn't forgive Cleese if he didn't say "fuck", or that Cleese was the first one to say it and that Chapman wouldn't forgive him if he didn't follow through and say "fuck" also. Qopzeep (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Influenced by Python

Can someone update the "Influenced" part on the right side and add prominent British comedians like Steve Coogan, Sanjeev Bhaskar, Simon Pegg, etc. Trey Parker & Matt Stone of South Park fame could also be included. I think that section does not do justice to their huge influence on comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.70.31 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not without references in reliable sources that say Monty Python was an important influence on their work. Otherwise, it is only an editor's opinion that they were influenced. Nothing can be added without references. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For Coogan see, (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/coogan-was-a-monty-python-parrot_1119691), for Bhaskar (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/article-23500426-sanjeev-bhaskar-is-king-of-comedy.do), for Peter Serafinowicz (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3668264/The-floor-is-his.html). I know nothing can be added without references, hence I did not edit the page, I'm only suggesting it. The latest documentary "Almost the Truth" is a good source for understanding their impact of modern comedy. Comedians like Pegg, Phill Jupitus, Bhaskar, Russell Brand and Stephen Merchant were citing Python as an influence in that documentary. Of course there is no space to add all the above mentioned names but the prominent ones should be mentioned. I have no intention to change it, I am only suggesting it to the editors who have spare time in their hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.70.31 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All of those sources look good. I will try to integrate them soon. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Pythons section

'The Pythons' section seems a bit ill-conceived. This is an encyclopedia with hyperlinks so we do not need to re-include material about each individual member that can be accessed by a single mouse click which goes to the main article for the person. The section should only contain each individuals specific connection to MP. Ashmoo (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Needless repetition. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hazel Pethig

Hazel Pethig was the costume designer for Flying Circus and all the Python movies. It seems fair to say that one can't think of a non-cartoon skit without thinking of her work. Doesn't she rate some mention in an article about Monty Python? She also doesn't have a Wikipedia page, which seems a little odd.