Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail

message: 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)
thread_title:  Funding by Elton John disputed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture section 

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT? DonIago (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Reception' section so US-centred 

message: * 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  articles and  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 .
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 .
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  (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.
* 
* 
* 
Uncle G (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor sourcing