This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
"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)
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) .
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) .
I have an official answer - it is definitely naughty - page 76 of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: The Screenplay ISBN 0-413-77394-9 that came with the Collector's Edition of the DVD. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The answer is naughty in My sight, and can be verified by looking it up on
Youtube. Listen carefully - it is definitely naughty and my, not naught, not or thy. On said link, the phrase in question is at 2:30.
>>>For certain, it's "naughty". I'm just suprised that the word 'lobbest' hasn't created a massive wiki-debate!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 ( talk) 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.222.152 ( talk • contribs)
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 think it looks a bit like the Sacred Heart. Could they be related? - Stormwatch 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm what order Brother Maynard was? Franciscan? Dominican? Cistercian? I've seen him referred to as all three on Wikipedia, at different times and places. Short of an explicit reference in the movie, a good guess by the color of the robe he wears (I don't own a copy of the movie and don't remember its color). -- Stbalbach 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
Are we quite sure about this? I don't seem to recall the grenade being coconut-ish, (other than being round). If this was an actual sight gag, why was it not more obvious? I think this may just be someone's personal interpretation. 70.20.232.141 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The section about the spear that the grenade is a parody of seems too certain that the spear is a myth. Yet, the actual article about the spear seems to hold open the possibility, which seems to me like the better position to take. I mean, in fairness it's impossible to know so certainly that this spear is a myth. Shouldn't that section be ammended, then? Drumski89 ( talk) 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Especially this passage: "Its "discovery" during the darkest hours of the siege when all hope seemed lost quickly became a source of contention between the pious crusaders who believed Bartholomew, and the more pragmatic who did not" Is Wikipedia supposed to be used for generally taking the piss? I don't like the the way pious and pragmatic are used in opposition. Especially since, according to Wikipedia, "Many people, including the papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy, believed Peter was a charlatan, and had simply brought a piece of iron with him to "find." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bartholomew) Who can say who's more "pious"? We've got some random monk on the one hand and a papal legate on the other. And why "pragmatic"? Both sides believed that such things actually existed, it was just this one instance that was questioned - especially since "[Adhemar] had seen a relic of the Holy Lance in Constantinople". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Antioch). The two camps should therefore be called "believers" and skeptics" (of Bartolomew's claim). Szkott ( talk) 08:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Used to teach the bible, Movie weapons worth having, Noteworthy, Set piece, Mac icon, Comedy classic, Production info, Paradies bible, Military nickname, Buffy pop cult ref - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this still sold on the PythOnline website, as is stated? It can be found elsewhere, but I have not been able to locate it on the official website, nor is there a link given where it is mentioned on this page. Cultclassical ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel it important to note that in some of the more recent worms games (worms 4 mayhem for example), the holy hand grenade weapon has not had a fuse, instead exploding when it comes to rest.(in W4M, with a chorus of 'alleluia'). (I think there is a time-out though, but its more than 3 seconds) 86.153.238.7 ( talk) 14:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
May I ask why the article doesn't even say that the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" functions similarly to a hand grenade? I mean, it's like describing a LED is a bipolar component which uses specific semiconductor properties, without saying that a LED emits light.-- 91.121.71.75 ( talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that both of the supposed cultural references from Fox seem to be references to Globus Crucigers in general, not specifically this. I've removed the following two from the article.
12.96.87.102 ( talk) 13:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
"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)
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) .
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) .
I have an official answer - it is definitely naughty - page 76 of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: The Screenplay ISBN 0-413-77394-9 that came with the Collector's Edition of the DVD. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The answer is naughty in My sight, and can be verified by looking it up on
Youtube. Listen carefully - it is definitely naughty and my, not naught, not or thy. On said link, the phrase in question is at 2:30.
>>>For certain, it's "naughty". I'm just suprised that the word 'lobbest' hasn't created a massive wiki-debate!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 ( talk) 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.222.152 ( talk • contribs)
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 think it looks a bit like the Sacred Heart. Could they be related? - Stormwatch 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm what order Brother Maynard was? Franciscan? Dominican? Cistercian? I've seen him referred to as all three on Wikipedia, at different times and places. Short of an explicit reference in the movie, a good guess by the color of the robe he wears (I don't own a copy of the movie and don't remember its color). -- Stbalbach 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
Are we quite sure about this? I don't seem to recall the grenade being coconut-ish, (other than being round). If this was an actual sight gag, why was it not more obvious? I think this may just be someone's personal interpretation. 70.20.232.141 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The section about the spear that the grenade is a parody of seems too certain that the spear is a myth. Yet, the actual article about the spear seems to hold open the possibility, which seems to me like the better position to take. I mean, in fairness it's impossible to know so certainly that this spear is a myth. Shouldn't that section be ammended, then? Drumski89 ( talk) 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Especially this passage: "Its "discovery" during the darkest hours of the siege when all hope seemed lost quickly became a source of contention between the pious crusaders who believed Bartholomew, and the more pragmatic who did not" Is Wikipedia supposed to be used for generally taking the piss? I don't like the the way pious and pragmatic are used in opposition. Especially since, according to Wikipedia, "Many people, including the papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy, believed Peter was a charlatan, and had simply brought a piece of iron with him to "find." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bartholomew) Who can say who's more "pious"? We've got some random monk on the one hand and a papal legate on the other. And why "pragmatic"? Both sides believed that such things actually existed, it was just this one instance that was questioned - especially since "[Adhemar] had seen a relic of the Holy Lance in Constantinople". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Antioch). The two camps should therefore be called "believers" and skeptics" (of Bartolomew's claim). Szkott ( talk) 08:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Used to teach the bible, Movie weapons worth having, Noteworthy, Set piece, Mac icon, Comedy classic, Production info, Paradies bible, Military nickname, Buffy pop cult ref - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this still sold on the PythOnline website, as is stated? It can be found elsewhere, but I have not been able to locate it on the official website, nor is there a link given where it is mentioned on this page. Cultclassical ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel it important to note that in some of the more recent worms games (worms 4 mayhem for example), the holy hand grenade weapon has not had a fuse, instead exploding when it comes to rest.(in W4M, with a chorus of 'alleluia'). (I think there is a time-out though, but its more than 3 seconds) 86.153.238.7 ( talk) 14:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
May I ask why the article doesn't even say that the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" functions similarly to a hand grenade? I mean, it's like describing a LED is a bipolar component which uses specific semiconductor properties, without saying that a LED emits light.-- 91.121.71.75 ( talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that both of the supposed cultural references from Fox seem to be references to Globus Crucigers in general, not specifically this. I've removed the following two from the article.
12.96.87.102 ( talk) 13:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)