Talk:Galaxy Song

Inappropriate material

Removed "All this should not reflect negatively on Idle; it is presented merely to set the quantities mentioned in the song into their factual context. Ultimately, to criticize this piece of light-hearted humour - which makes no claim to be an authoritative cosmological statement - over its numbers would seem to be obsessional nitpicking." as it seems to be a personal statement about why facts are listed rather than an actual factoid. --Nathan Murray. 2 August 2007

You cannot just copy the full lyrics of copyrighted songs onto wikipedia. Justinc 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Context

I would have also liked to know a little more of the sketch, for example in what context Eric Idle pops into the sketch and sings the song. Anyone know? --Mithcoriel

There's no real context. When John Cleese's character wants to convince Terry Jones' character to give up her liver in the Live Organ Transplants sequence, he produces Eric Idle from a refrigerator who begins singing the song while he and Jones walk through a field of stars. 82.95.254.30 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a real context, and you just gave it: the "look how amazing the big universe is and how small and insignificadnt we are" lyrics are part of trying to talk her into accepting that having them take away the liver (while patient is alive) is ok. Such a 1-sentence context reference surely belongs in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.49.24 (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"A sun that is the source of all our power"

• The light from the other stars form a tiny proportion of the energy available to us on Earth.
• Some of wind power stems from the rotation of the Earth. Did that energy come from the sun?

I'm no scientist. Any thoughts? --Billpg 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See the article on Wind - the first paragraph states that it does. Mike Peel 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wind power comes from the sun, as it's mostly driven by convection, but geothermal power and tidal power don't come from the sun (geothermal comes from radioactive decay within the earth's core, and tidal comes from the rotation of the earth relative to both the earth-moon and earth-sun systems). Nuclear power produced on earth also doesn't come from the sun. The vast majority of power produced (hydroelectric and fossil fuel based) comes from the sun, though. --Christopher Thomas 15:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Light from other stars" is certainly not "a source of our power", so it's irrelevant here. Tidal power derives partially from the Sun. Rewrote the sentence in parentheses accordingly.
—Herbee 22:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be a minute and insignificant source, but starlight falls onto plants and perform photosynthesis with the energy, so it remain a power source. --Billpg 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"As They Might Be Giants did" is not only irrelevant (although understandable that people interested in Python-related songs would share interest in this band and desire to create a connection in the entry) but factually hazy. The song alluded to was a cover of a song written in 1959 by Lou Singer and Hy Zaret.

Well as the geothermal heat from the Earth and the tidal energy all come from our solar system, which in turn came from the sun, I would say the sun is "the source for all our power, and thus should be changed. Any disagreements? 213.104.247.28 (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Song Lyrics

I agree that the lyrics probabaly shouldn't be put on wikipedia, as a link would probabaly suffice, but besides that, it shouldn't come after the external links.--Artega 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above removal sentiment. IMO and IME (in my experience) the song itself and its lyrics are of cultural significance and importance. Maybe there should be a WikiLyrics.org to house lyrics, until there is, seems to be it belongs here on Wikipedia.org under the entry describing the song itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.49.24 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Whether the lyrics are culturally significant is not the point, they are still copyrighted. We can quote bits of them for the purposes of critical commentary (e.g. the dispute over accuracy in this case), and discussing the historical and cultural context of the song itself, but simply copying and pasting the entire set of words is not justified. Linking to the complete lyrics hosted on a third-party server should be OK, but that's it. leevclarke (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MP3

I removed the link to the MP3, 'cause it certainly doesn't fall under fair use. 82.95.254.30 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!

Some help from UK folks would be appreciated to clarify this. My understanding is that the term bugger here means idiots, a-holes etc...Urbandictionary confirms this general meaning with the entries, "That bugger stole my Holden! (used to refer to a person in a derogatory manner.) I decided to let the bugger enjoy it. (used in reference to a friend or someone you feel sorry for.)"

As far as the intended meaning, the intend of the last line, based on the entire song's context, seems to be, "pray for intelligent life Out There because down here on Earth it's all just idiots" And if that's the intended meaning, shouldn't the last line be something closer to, "...'cause they're buggers all [they are all idiots/jerks] down here on earth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.49.24 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no, "bugger all" means very little or nothing. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that.."'cause there's [little or nothing] down here on Earth" makes sense. I'm not the only one who was confused, as a search for the Galaxy Song on video.google.com reveals images of people giving a "fuck you" finger gesture at the end of the songs...so the people who made those videos need to know about your explanation of what the term actually means instead of their misinterpretation..thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.49.24 (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yer, those guys need to relise that we have different meanings here in the UK for certain phrases, and Monty Python is English afterall.194.81.189.20 (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the English-language Wikipedia needs to explain common English words and terms like 'bugger all'. Encyclopaedias don't need to spoonfeed their readers. If readers don't know certain words or expressions, or can't understand them from context, they can always Google them. It's not rocket surgery. I think the explanation of 'bugger all' should be removed from the article as superfluous. Alpheus (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, clarifying odd slang is indeed helpful.JascalX (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As a colonial, I can concur that the Wiktionary definition, is correct, at least to a pedantic number of people.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bugger_all

Signed - Ted Bullpit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.195.195 (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

6 or 16 thousand light years thick, validity of message from Eric Idle himself

If anyone is concerned about the validity of the message from Eric himself in response to the 6 or 16 thousand light years thick question given in this reference: http://pythonline.com/blogs/johnalexwood/6_or_16_thousand_light_years_thick the comment is from Jeanna, the Pythonline administrator who pasted an excerpt of an e-mail she received from Eric into the comment on that page. Johnalexwood (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over the name

Controversy or not, the Google citations aren't entirely accurate. If you search for the respective terms using quotes (either around the entire term or isolating "Monty Python" and "[x] Song", "Galaxy" wins out hands down (217k to 126k for fully quoted, 18k to 3k for isolated quoting). It's only when you search for the terms unquoted that "Universe" wins out. Kendel (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thus far, there is no reliable source that there actually is a controversy or widesprea confusion about the song title. That the song title is "inaccurate" is POV and that Conan and Idle "perpetuated" an error is factually wrong. If anyone, it is the writer who decides what the real title is. Hence I move the following here:

Perhaps the most inaccurate detail of "The Galaxy Song" is the name itself. While the first verse indeed describes our galaxy, the 
last two lines depart greatly from it: "And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions/In this amazing and expanding universe."  
The rest of the song describes the universe itself, far beyond the scope of our galaxy. 

On NPR's Talk of the Nation, host Neal Conan and guest Eric Idle perpetuated the inaccurate title, hastily correcting an 
email from an astute fan: 

CONAN: This email from Katherine in Chico, California. I've been an avid Python fan since I was 13 and thrilled to see "Not the 
Messiah (He's a Very Naughty Boy)" at the Hollywood Bowl almost a year ago. I particularly liked Mr. Idle's Bob Dylan impression 
as well as the finale of "The Universe Song." It was really spectacular.
Mr. IDLE: Well, thanks. I do appear as Bob Dylan at one point...
CONAN: ...And in that production, the finale or the encore was "The Universe Song" "The Galaxy Song," rather...
Mr. IDLE: At the Hollywood Bowl we were asked if we would put it up with fireworks. And we said, yes, we'd tolerate fireworks. And so 
John Du Prez wrote some fireworks music, part of "The Galaxy Song." And I think it's the first fireworks music written 
since Handel. So it was just - it was spectacular.< ref>Idle, Eric (2010-06-08). [http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/
transcript.php?storyId=127562581 "Monty Python Vet Eric Idle: 'Not The Messiah'"]. NPR. Retrieved 2012-02-17. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); line feed character in |url= at position 41 (help)< /ref>

Meanwhile, the official Monty Python YouTube channel hosts the song under the name "Galaxy Song".
< ref>Galaxy Song on YouTube</ref>

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Author

Maybe I missed it but the article doesn't inform who wrote the song. Airproofing (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Another inaccuracy

Some of the stars that we can see are from other galaxies outside the Milky Way. Does anyone have a good reference for this? 120.19.157.209 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If you mean "seen as separate dots", then no. If you ask whether we see other galaxies at all, then yes - a few (Andromeda, Large and Small Magellanic Clouds). See e.g. the answers here. --User:Haraldmmueller 09:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galaxy Song. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404133448/http://alpha.lasalle.edu:80/~smithsc/Astronomy/Galaxy_Song/galaxy_song.html to http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/Galaxy_Song/galaxy_song.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Galaxy Song. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161227183617/http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086kfbj to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086kfbj
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/Galaxy_Song/galaxy_song.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect universe expansion rate/speed

Whenever I listen to this song, I am struck by how inaccurate the closing statement is, about how the universe is only expanding at the speed of light.

The song says: "Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding, In all of the directions it can whiz; As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know, Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is."

The universe is expanding faster then the speed of light, so the song is incorrect.

I think this is worth mentioning on this page. I actually specifically sought out information originally to see if anyone else noticed this speed of light inaccuracy in the song, and was delighted to see the "Accuracy of astronomical figures" section on this article. But then disappointed when it was not mentioned.

Here are some references about the universe expanding faster then the speed of light:

From Wiki Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Universal_expansion

From cite: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#cite_note-2): http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate

Atomisernova (talk)

It's meant to be a humorous song? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Then why even have the "Accuracy of astronomical figures" in the article? Atomisernova (talk)

Good point. But for humourless scientific pedants, who expect this kind of information, it's generously included. In fact, as you may have seen, the metric expansion of space is already mentioned in the last paragraph of that section. Unfortunately, the source currently given seems to be broken. I've added a tag there. Perhaps you'd like to add a source that works, so that it doesn't get deleted? The problem is not that Idle is terribly wrong, however. It's just that it's hard to make the phrase "eleven point one six million miles an hour" scan in that part of the song? Do you see the subtle difference there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)