Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monty Python and the Holy Grail article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 31 days

Film: British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Comedy Top‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Monty Python Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Monty Python task force.

King Arthur Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Top‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Funding by Elton John disputed

Eric Idle is quite sure that Elton John didn't help to fund the film. https://twitter.com/EricIdle/status/1372555186485391366 -- 忍者猫 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree - on Elton John's article, this interview with Terry Gilliam is referenced: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/mar/09/features.phelimoneill It implies that Elton John was contacted for funding, but states nothing about whether this contact resulted in any actual money being exchanged. When this is cleared up, the corresponding correction should also be made at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Elton_John#cite_note-235 . RudolfSchreier (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture section

If ever there were a page that needed an In Popular Culture section, where references to the Holy Grail are listed from other films, Presidential speeches, pop songs, astronaut declarations in space... this is it. Someone please make that section, because The Holy Grail is referenced everywhere, everyday. Plus see my request on Wikipedia: Requested Articles for it to be created as a separate page, because per Wikipedia guidelines In Popular Culture sections should eventually be split off into their own page when they get too long (so ultimately the top 10 should be on this page and the top 100 should be on that page.) --Mrcolj (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Reception' section so US-centred

This film was made, acted, financed and produced by Brits and filmed in Scotland. So why is the 'Reception' section dominated by US sources - six of them - and just one British. Do only American critics' views matter? Is this cultural hegemony, or just simply annoying? If we want to have a more balanced section, would someone like to research original reviews that weren't only from Chicago, New York or Los Angeles? This is particularly irritating given that when originally shown in the US the film was bowdlerised for being a little too earthy for easily-shocked American folks. I realise this sounds trivial in itself, but sometimes the English Language version of Wikipedia feels like the Voice of America. There are about 2 Billion English speakers globally, but only 15% of them live in the US, yet Wiki's homepage is dominated by baseball players, (American) Football players (sports that virtually know one else bothers with) and so on. There is a wider world out there and Wikipedia- English doesn't reflect it.BobBadg (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT? DonIago (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing

Special:Diff/1064964245

Despite the unbelievers, this article has mentioned the credits for over 19 years. However, rather than sourcing this to an article by one Cindy Davis, on a webblog where M. Davis just does clickbaity "20 Facts About …" articles and is not actually identifiable and whose expertise is unknown, you can do so much better here.

There's a professor of Media Arts from Brigham Young University, a identifiable credentialled expert writing in xyr field of expertise, who actually explains each individual credit, item by item (e.g. "Hengt Douglas-Home" being a reference to Alec Douglas-Home), at Larsen 2015. Far from following up on the bad idea earlier on this talk page of building this article with random pop culture references, you can in fact have expert-sourced content on the cultural references that this movie makes.

And the reason not to source articles to such shallow clickbait space fillers is made amply evident by Hoffman 2015, p. 136. Use the experts, a professor of English in this second case, and you'll discover "facts about" the movie that, contra to M. Davis, you actually did not know, and truly are not in this article, such as that the credits were at the end of the movie in the original theatrical releases, contradicting what this article currently says about why they were written (which isn't even supported by the Davis source). Even the less detailed Butler & Klepuszewski 2014, p. 57 (lecturer in English and Ph.D. in literary studies) mentions Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Film, who is thus far not appearing in this article too.

If you don't source to shallow clickbait weblogs of unidentifiable authorship, you can do so much better.

Larsen, Darl (2015). "Title and Credit Sequence". A Book about the Film Monty Python and the Holy Grail: All the References from African Swallows to Zoot. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–26. ISBN 9781442245549.
Hoffman, Donald L. (2015). "Not Dead Yet: Monty Python and the Holy Grail in the Twenty-first Century". In Harty, Kevin J. (ed.). Cinema Arthuriana: Twenty Essays, rev. ed. McFarland. pp. 136–148. ISBN 9781476608440.
Butler, Stephen; Klepuszewski, Wojciech (2014). "Monty Python and the Flying Feast of Fools". In Dobrogoszcz, Tomasz (ed.). Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition: Cultural Contexts in Monty Python. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 53–60. ISBN 9781442237377.

Uncle G (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]