Lovely but irrelevant tribute

I'd like to complain about the extremely silly nature of this entire topic. It contains many references which are outrageous, barmy, and downright French. I strongly demand that all those responsible be brought around to my house, preferably bound and gagged, for a right good seeing-to. I say, what is the world coming to when a serious and god-fearing servant of the Queen can't browse the Internet without coming across such filth?

Respectfully yours, Brigadier Charles Leavensworth, Mrs.

Miscellaneous

My immediate presumption is that a list of MP songs may need to be editted for decency (like I care about somebody else's norms and mores!). Much can be written on this page and the innuendo is well known. Lawrence? James? Your 2 pesos, please. --Invictus

Monty Python was the group, not the show. Monty Python's Flying Circus was the show.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

'Monty Python' is the name of the comedy troupe. 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' was the name of their televisions show. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was the name of one of their movies.

I'll fix this up on the main page, possibly after dinner. - Tim

Did they ever explicitly refer to themselves collectively as "Monty Python"? I've heard them called "The Pythons" and "the Monty Python team" but never (in the UK) collectively as "Monty Python"

TS, sorry, took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about. Yes, the main Monty Python page is incorrect and should be altered to reflect your points.

I thought Chapman died of AIDS or something AIDS related.

Not every celebrity dies of AIDS, you know. Graham died from throat cancer, that metastasised to the spine. Let that be a warning about pipe-smoking. Malcolm Farmer

Shouldn't there be a mention of Carol Cleveland and that other lady. It would not have been as good a show w/o them. I think Cleese was married to Carol

Oh, and I must say, old bean, you didn't remember Johnnie's beautiful wife's name at all correctly. He was married to Connie Booth, by Jove, and don't you forget it! Let's hear no more talk of any homosexual activity by members of Monty Python, do you hear me! Where Monty sticks his python or his member is no concern of yours, sir! Great Scott, what's this country coming to! It'll be the death of the Empire! - Brigadier Charles Leavensworth, Mrs.

Added Carol and Connie on the 5th of September 2003, old man, what are you complaining about? Clean those glasses, chappie! - Brigadier Charles Leavensworth, Mrs.

Busterdog

I'm adding it. David 17:09 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

"Their work" is not an appropriate section title. I didn't get anything else, sorry. Its just that the rest of the article was going into the "Frequent Supporting Cast Members" section, and I wanted to separate out the bottom section under some title.

Also, any idea why Monty Python is called "Monty Python" and which year was the troupe formed ?

Also can someone find out Python (Monty) Pictures Limited's turnover for the financial year 2003 and update that line.

Jay 12:42, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think there is some discussion about the name in Graham Chapman's Autobiography (though its impossible to tell which parts of his autobiography are true ;-). I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow to see if there is anything useful there. - Tobin Richard

Financial data for year to April 2003 not yet available on FAME. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:29, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Did Neil Innes play female roles? Article implies so. ( 12:55, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am in the process of a complete overhaul of this page and the related Monty Python's Flying Circus. Amongst other things this will cut down on the duplication between these two pages. I hope to have it done before Christmas, maybe even in the next couple of days (if I have time). In the meantime feel free to continue editing. I will incorporate any changes that are still applicable into my version by checking the page history before uploading. Any questions feel free to contact me. HappyDog 17:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have consolidated this article with the Monty Python's Flying Circus article, as there was a lot of duplication and redundancy. The article isn't finished (are they ever?) but it is a lot better, I think. I am aware that this is a potentially controversial move, and that even if we should have one major article with the other a link to it it should maybe be the other way round. Before everyone starts rearranging and moving the article around I think it deserves a bit of discussion. Please could we discuss this on talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus instead of here, in order to keep the conversation in one place. Thanks HappyDog 14:18, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that this page should be a redirect to Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Aggelophoros 02:01, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This may be true, but there has not yet been an agreement whether the main article should be under Monty Python, MPFC, or whether there should in fact be 2 articles. Please add any further comments to talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus. HappyDog 14:52, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"inreadably strange", found third sentence of the section on John Cleese. Perhaps incredibly strange was intended *shrugs* --Cfailde 12:47, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Construction Fence

The following is moved from the article; see below for discussion of changes within it.

~~==Pythomenon ==~~

The Show

See: Monty Python's Flying Circus

The Films

[To come]

The Rest

[To come]

Something a Little Different

Ground rules

This is an encyclopedia article about the funniest thing to come down the pike in i-dunno-how-long. It is not a comedy piece.

I struck out the heading "Pythomenon" (which is a fine term that deserves mention somewhere in the article (unless it was invented by the person who added it to the article and their friends)). The purpose of the headings is to inform, to guide, the reader re what is where. To the extent that you're funny, you're a little obscure. Here's a rule of thumb:

We have an article on humor.
We have an article on pornography.
We even have an article on fuck.
But we don't make jokes, we don't tittilate, and we don't talk dat shit. (Well, except on the talk pages, where a little humor, a little evocation of sexuality, and a little foul language can lighten the day, if kept respectful and focussed.)

IMO, "The Rest" as a heading is a little flippant, but fairly clear; perhaps no one will push for replacing it.

Respect your colleagues that you work on this article with, keep the debate and future plans on this talk page (and sign your entries on the talk page with --~~~~), trust the reader to go away with the hard facts or the links to the jokes (according to their needs) without trying to play it for laughs, and (BTW, guys), don't quit your day job. smile

Oh, and do as i say, not as i do: Don't use the super-giant heading style that appears in the cases of "Miscellaneous", "Construction Fence", and "Something a Little Different" on this talk page.

I used them here to confine the headings that i moved from the talk page, instead of letting them blend in among the other headings that will arise. I would not use them in an article, i've used them only once before on a talk page, and i've never even seen them used in an article. --Jerzy (t) 18:59, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

This is very very condascending. Ground rules? Who are you? --HappyDog 03:13, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

ego-less process ?

What's that supposed to mean? According to ordinary hermeneutical principles, this is impossible. In addition, writers have big egos, as well, mind you:) I think this article should be less POV. - Sigg3.net 07:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The logic of the objection escapes me. (E.g., there is such a thing as sublimating, if you will, your ego into excelling at setting aside your raw ego, or developing an ego that identifies with the group rather than the individual.)

Yes, and it still isn't ego-less. - Sigg3.net 21:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But a more objective term would be worthwhile. And excessive PoV is likely, given the subject matter!

--Jerzy (t) 19:55, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

Pasted from the article with strike-outs: If something made the majority laugh, it would be in the show. The casting of roles for the sketches was a similarly democratic ~~and ego-less~~ process since each member of the troupe viewed himself as [equal to the others] ~~writer rather than as an actor desperate for screen time~~. Now, why have I removed so much? Because the latter 50% of it is NPOV and rather uninteresting when it comes to Monty Python. There are other ways of writing about their cooperation, but since I don't have the basic knowledge of this process, I won't step in and ruin it all. Either way, the majority didn't always laugh at MP's sketches, sometimes they were far too radical (e.g the Hilter sketch, Life of Brian etc.). - Sigg3.net 21:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How do you the majority of the group didn't laugh when they created the sketch, which is what the sentence refered to? You appear to be talking about audiences? It seems to me pretty clear what the original sentence is trying to say - "They worked as a team" would be a simple way of putting it. I think you are getting hug up on the philosophical nature of the ego rather than appreciating that it was originally being used in a fairly simple-minded way. Pcb21| Pete 22:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not helping out. I'd still like to see the word ego-less removed (not just to boost my ego, but) because it is no word and has no meaning. And, aesthetically, it doesn't fit in with the content. - Sigg3.net 07:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV edit

Opening line:

"Monty Python or The Pythons were the creators and stars of Monty Python's Flying Circus, the television comedy series that did to British comedy what The Beatles did to music."

Painfully POV. This is astoundingly unqualifiable. If the effort is to associate the two as for the proundness they had on Brittish culture, then please include that. The impact the Beatles had on the rest of the world cannot be compared to the Python.

The thing that can reduce the POVness is to specify the areas in which they are similary, otherwise it's an alony.

If no change is made by late Fri, I will attempt to reword the introductory sentence to better fit with the article.

--Duemellon 19:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

edited --Duemellon 15:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Yeah, I know something George Harrison said that might help clarify this bit. I like the whole python - beatles thing. I think it's true. If it is POV, it's a widely held one. --Crestville 19:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)