Talk:Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch article.

Contents

[edit] Article for Delete results

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

The result of the debate was keep the page.

  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch - silly Monty Python-related article; linked to only by Monty Python and Worms (game); I think it unlikely to ever be linked to from any other article. --Smack 05:17, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. While trivial and silly, the HHGoA is well known (though maybe not by that initialization). After all, Monty Python's Holy Grail is also silly, but it certainly worth an article. -Anthropos 05:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Having accepted that the film is worth an article of its own, can't the HHGoA be covered within that article? Do we really need a separate article for it? (Or, for that matter, Castle Anthrax, the Knights who say Ni, or the Black Knight?) —Paul A 05:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a fairly well-written, popular article with several different contributors over a period of two years. I think this sort of listing is the main reason many people refuse to take VfD seriously. - Hephaestos 05:29, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Please no more VfD's like this. Optim 05:47, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Depends on to what extent you think fictional things should be covered here. We have literally hundreds of Tolkien-world articles (Minas Ithil, Rohan, Aragorn, Gondor, hobbit, Gandalf, Battle of Pelenor Fields, Sauron, Valar, Gollum, etc., etc.), so I don't see why a few dozen Monty Python ones should be different. --Delirium 06:09, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Agree with User:Paul A, who was actually an important contributor to this article. The film is a subcultural icon and needs a substantial article, but it's best to keep individual scenes from the film within that article. Some of the Tolkien articles (some of which I created or helped to write) should also be consolidated (such as Chronology of Middle-earth instead of articles for each of the Ages); however, there is much more to be known about Tolkien than about Monty Python. I'd say it's impossible to write more on the Grenade than that article currently has without delving into extreme arcana such as the creators' inspiration, etc, while the Tolkien universe is open to veritable labyrinths of meaningful interpretation. Come to think of it, I should take it upon myself to reduce the Middle-earth madness on the wiki. --Smack 06:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Remember, deletion of an article does not (or should not) mean removal from the Wikipedia! Little articles like this should, IMHO, be grouped in single articles or article sections such as 'Scenes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail' or 'Characters from the Simpsons' (cf also debate elsewhere) if they are too unweildy to fit on the page itself. Fragmentation of articles is quite uncomfortable. Also, don't forget that you can link to sections of an article as well as the top with [[article#section]].
    • Keep. Ni! Davodd 08:31, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Nr Jones. Keep but merge. Bmills 10:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This's good information that definitely does have its place in geek culture. --zandperl 13:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Its use is widespread enough that it is deserving of a brief article. We have room. Wikipedia is not paper. Jwrosenzweig 23:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Totally not a page unto itself. Consolidate all references to the movie into 1 page/article. Aurelius One 22/01/04
    • Keep. Good topic, good article. Maybe not the highest priority to add if it weren't there, but it is. Andrewa 07:18, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A good article. I'd like to see you try to merge it. Ni! NI! Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky p'kang! Zroop-boing! - Arthur George Carrick 04:07, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, for above reasons. Anjouli 05:21, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • NICKY-NICKY! - Arthur George Carrick 21:56, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just coming off a discussion (before I knew about Wiki) about how people of other generations will understand various cultural allusions from once-popular entertainment, and this seems like a good place for such things. But I do wonder whether this deserves a separate entry if "cone of silence" from Get Smart doesn't. (My inclination would be to add Cone of Silence--I've encountered the phrase in the business world often enough.) Elf 01:54, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I have my reasons. 戴&#30505sv 01:57, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Quick, get rid of it before it explodes!!! Keep the article, though. Κσυπ Cyp   02:08, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. How else will a new generation of children understand their parents when they quip "and five is right out"? Fabiform 02:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Secretlondon 19:30, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, most definetly! FelipeBusnello. The HHGoA achieved great notoriety in geek culture.
    • keep!! oh my good god this is great! XD this is why Wikipedia is so great - it has everything! you couldn't possibly find this in any other Encyclopedia. merging these articals is also a possible idea, but there are many, and though each is small, the page would be big. it could be possible to merge this with Rabbit of Caerbannog


[edit] Love it

I can't believe we have an article on this. Oh, how I just love Wikipedia!

Just remember: "Stoppest thou not at two, and as thou shall hence count upward to three, proceedeth thou not onward to four." --DanielCD 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

lol I was about to say the same thing. I was reading about Kitana's Animality move (Mortal Kombat fatality where she turns into a rabbit and mauls her opponent) and my immediate reaction was to look up The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! I am most pleased to see that there is an entry on it. :) CyberRaptor 07:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Not or Naughty

"lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being not in My sight, shall snuff it. Amen."

It's a long long time since I saw the film, but I'm nevertheless 90% certain that this should read "naughty in my sight", rather than "not in my sight". The former makes sense... -- Daniel Barlow, Fri Apr 7 11:28:49 BST 2006

I think that "not in my sight" makes more sense; its a hand grenade so you'd want to be behind something when it goes off. Kravitch 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes more sense? We're talking about a Python film here, people!!! I've seen the film about a hundred times. It's definitely "naughty in my sight".Britmax 23:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I would say it sounds like "naught in my sight", as in 'nothing in my sight'. "Not" is both too short and too open to have been used in that occasion. "Naughty" sounds a bit 'unliturgical' - rather breaks the strength of the friar's speech. I must own, though, that I can't tell whether the friar says "naught-in" or "naughty". Rdrs 22:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's "naughty." The tone is indeed unliturgical, but so is "shall snuff it." That sort of thing is typical Python.
Septegram 15:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sure that it is "not". First of all, they Pythons are/were all well educated and literate, I'm sure I've seen that phrase (or similar turns, e.g., "not in his sight", "not in the Lord's sight", etc.) in several old writings. No, I can't say where. ( There are a few hundred google hits for "not in his sight" or "not in God's sight".) It fits really well with their style of humor to take a legitimate phrase, recognizable to learned folks, something that could have been lifted from religious verse and finish it with "shall snuff it". I can't say how many times I've watched the film (or listened to the record), maybe hundreds, maybe not... but I heard it as "not" 30ish years ago when I first saw the film, I memorized it and recited it myself countless times as "not"... and until sometime in the past few years when I saw a transcription that said "naughty" I never would have thought for even a moment that it was anything other than "not". Rhsatrhs
Most likely it is a pun and meant to be acceptable either way. Such is art. Without a source, we should stick with the most logical and obvious (Occam's Razor), which I agree is not not naughty. -- Stbalbach 15:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I always thought it was "nought"... so I interpreted it as a British thing (and interpreted it as zero) which makes another odd statement - "He's a zero in my eyes." However, looking it up in wiktionary right now to type this comment I found (with a bible quote even): Good for nothing; worthless. -- 1611 "It is nought, it is nought, saith the buyer, but when he is gone his way, then he boasteth." Proverbs 20:14 (King James Version) As has been mentioned, they were a fairly well educated bunch... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not go look at a copy of the script? Thats what I did, and naughty it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.46.198.232 (talk • contribs) .

This is problematic. The "script" could easily be someone writing it out and thus suffer under the same problem of viewer interpretation. If you have a citation for the script that would be helpful to determine how official it is (if an "official" script even exists). -- Stbalbach 15:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
As a Brit from Oxford with a few family members from the north, I am extremely comfortable with Michael Palin's accent and I've just listened to the reading from the Book of Armaments. To my ear, it is very clearly "naughty in my sight". TristanDC 23:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we can find a source that says that, that would be great. -- Stbalbach 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it the closest thing I can find to an OFFICAL script on the web. http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/mp-holy.asp I also looked at several trasciptions. All had the word as "naughty". I have seen a published hardcopy once apon time (about ten years ago in a used book store in Loundon) but was unable to locate copy for a full bibliographic refrance. Unless anyone can come with a refrence that says otherwise, I vote to change the entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.46.198.232 (talk • contribs) .

That's good enough for me. It's not definitive but seems to suggest naughty is the case. And there is nothing that says otherwise. -- Stbalbach 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couple reverts

Reverted changes. Trojan Rabbit is a trivia aside that is unrelated to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. The Chinese character is unrelated - if they look the same it is coincidental neither was an influence. --Stbalbach 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mojo Jojo?

What does Mojo Jojo have to do with the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch? Mojo Jojo's speech consisted of how many Mojo Jojos was too many for one world following an accident where Bubbles believed she WAS Mojo Jojo. The exact line is "two Mojo Jojos is too many, and three is right out", making the citation on this page misplaced, obscure and inaccurate. I'm removing it right away. ThomasWinwood (not logged in for some reason)

[edit] Excessive script quote is out of place

This part of the article seems out of place and not terribly informative about the hand grenade and is rather about the film (and not worth including in any wikipedia article except one listing all of Monty Python's jokes, IMHO).

"Arthur then holds up the Holy Hand Grenade Of Antioch and cries out "ONE! TWO! FIVE!", To which Sir Galahad says "Three Sir!" Arthur then yells "THREE!" and hurls it at the killer rabbit. The Grenade soars through the air, accompanied by a short bit of choral music, then bounces once and explodes. Presumably the killer rabbit is dead after this, for the Knights subsequently enter the cave which it has been guarding."

Tristan Wibberley, 16 October 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.222.152 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what part you are commenting on. Is the I personally love the Book of Armaments quote but agree it could go. The counting and the throwing quote probably has more popular culture relevance. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 10:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What else can you say about a fictional device from a spoof movie? Seems relevant. Other "fictional device" articles do something similar, Dead Man's Chest for example. -- Stbalbach 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was only referring to the (fictional) historical account of Arthur's attempt to operate the device correctly as being excessive. I found the biblical quote most useful. -- Tristan Wibberley, 17 October 2006

I've made this read better by properly introducing the frame of reference of the writing style from in-world, to real-world [1] TristanDC 23:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It was overly verbose and not really needed, it makes sense how it is and is much cleaner. -- Stbalbach 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It makes sense, but it is not what the section describes - that being a fictional biblical passage on how to use the device, and thus absolutely requires introduction as being a description of a depiction of the device's use according to those instructions. My wording was no more verbose than necessary to achieve its purpose (except maybe "glorious" :) The part following the usage instructions is about somebody using the HHGOA, not about the HHGOA. That paragraph is relevant only in so far as it demonstrates "[HHGOA's] resilience to misuse and its effectiveness", and the reader needs to know what they're expected to take from it. Also since the article is about the Holy Hand Grenade and not about the Monty Python film of its inception, the screenplay context must be given. I think these things are necessary and I think I did it quite well so unless you can suggest an alternative means to frame that bit of Holy Grail screenplay - could you unrevert please? TristanDC 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There is really nothing wrong with it the way it is. What you wrote was verbose and redundant while trying to be clever with a bit of hamming it up. There is no need for an introduction, your making it complicated. Keep is simple, short and clear. The section is simply recounting a scene from the movie. -- Stbalbach 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That is not what the section is doing, if the section were doing that it wouldn't have the title that it has. As it is the section reads like somebody was transcribing the usage instructions and forgot to stop. That is the problem I was trying to address, and the problem remains. TristanDC 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The quote is in ginormous quotes. Are you using the monobook style or another that may not be showing them (they are a cquote). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The direct extended quote is a cquote, the following part is a paraphrase of the script with scene action descriptions which includes some direct quotes, but they are so short, and require additional explanation, that they don't qualify for a blockquote/cquote style and are done in-line. It does seem to "keep going", I would not be adverse to removing that last paragraph as it has nothing to do with the HHGoA - but I suspect as soon as it's removed someone clever enough who has seen the movie before will want to re-add it with a wink and nod. -- Stbalbach 17:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred Heart?

I think it looks a bit like the Sacred Heart. Could they be related? - Stormwatch 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/l/Talk%7EHoly_Hand_Grenade_of_Antioch_2e76.html"