Talk:The Three Stooges/Archive 1

Archive 1

First Draft

I know there are gaps in the first version of the article, but I'm not even a particularly avid fan of the Stooges. I don't not want to spoil the fun that a real fan will have filling in all the other blanks. (I only wrote what was most interesting to me. :-) <>< Tim Chambers

I enjoyed the article as written. The Stooges were at their bestest, I think, when Curly Howard was part of the team. He was a gifted comic. --Maryevelyn 03:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other Main Characters

Though I don't know their names, other actors who figured prominently in the shorts should be mentioned, like the woman who sang in "Microphonies" and the man who usually plays the cop subject to abuse. Both appear in a lot of shorts and they should be given credit. Connie Cezon is another frequent cast member who mostly played the blonde "bad girl" or gold digger. Vernon Dent often played authority figures such as Judges and Cops. Kenneth MacDonald was a frequent villian or "slick" con-man.

The music section should also mention "Pop Goes The Weasel" which drove Curly into a fighting frenzy in Punch Drunks.

Shemp bias?

A recent edit claims that it is POV to talk about the "him primarily as if they were Moe, Larry, Curly. Everything I've read about the team gives me the impression that they really were the "canonical" Stooges, and the most popular. I certainly feel that way.

I removed an earlier Joe Besser bias, simply replacing the reason he left with the version told by Moe in his autobiography and Joe in his, and did not have to consider the issue of his success.--192.35.35.34 18:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vee-vee-vee? Bee-bee-bee?

How about "Heep-heep-heep" for the frightened Shemp? This is how it is rendered in "Two Reelers" (See Tributes section). --Theodore Kloba June 29, 2005 14:12 (UTC)

I always thought that fidgety, repetive expression of Shemp's sounded like "mee-mee-mee-mee". In any case, Shemp was OK, but he wasn't Curly. Not even close, other than being his brother. Wahkeenah 29 June 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Oblique reference in computer game

Hack (precursor to NetHack) used to have three humans, named Moe, Larry and Curly, busy slapping each other around until the player angers them. AQt which pint player risks being blinded for a while by getting poked by them. --131.207.161.152 13:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Catchphrases

Although I meant what I said when I wrote that the Stooges are among the most quotable of comedy teams (maybe only the Marx Brothers are quoted more), I think the catchphrase list is rather long. It seems to have become essential a collection of quotes, which is not what the section is supposed to be. I'll let more qualified Stooge-o-philes handle this, but I think the list needs to be culled, perhaps by as much as a third. 23skidoo 17:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a swing at it, someone check up on me though and correct it if you think I cleared something I shouldn't have. For a first step I think I'll just separate it into a separate Quotes section for comment, then if no one objects after a week or so, we can just remove that section to wikiquotes or something. Phil 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone compiled a list of insults to which Curly answered, "Why, thank you!"?

• I think Curly's scared shouting would be better written down as woo-woo-woo, not whoop-whoop-whoop. Just a thought. Fleagle11 20:11, 18 November 200

• Woo-woo-woo is probably correct as you can see in "You Nazty Spy!" in Curly's notebook "woo-woo-woo".

Trivia

That trivia regarding The Simpsons is incorrect, the two regulars they are referring to are named Larry and Sam(not Larry and Curly). TJ Spyke 22:03, 25 April 2006 (ET)

I don't agree that trivia sections don't have a place in these articles. While some of it can be merged into other sections, there is trivia that belongs in a trivia section and deserves to be saved.

Catchphrases

What happened to a long list of phrases we made for all the Stooges? Why not make a seperate page with that long list we did? King Shadeed 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, I oughta! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleting articles on Stooge shorts

Just thought people who frequent this article would like to know a precedent is being set at Cash and Carry (1937) for nominating articles on Stooge shorts for deletion, rather than attempting to improve on or add content to them. --Rizzleboffin 05:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is it said that the article is up for deletion? I don't see any AFD or PROD marker. 23skidoo 12:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

After working on the article last night, I followed these instructions-- You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. I also took out the unencyclopedic, unsourced, and merged tags because I felt I had addressed all those issues as well. I don't have much experience in the deletion process, so I hope I was acting according to proper protocol.

What I don't understand is why an editor would say, "This article needs work-- delete it!" rather than, "This article needs work, I will do that work!" (or, at the very least, "This article needs work, could someone else please do that work?") --Rizzleboffin 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Three Wise Fellows" in Cerebus

The independent comic book Cerebus contains an homage to the Three Stooges as main supporting characters in the graphic novel "Latter Days", but I didn't know how I should include it in the article. -- 13 August 2006

Please do. It's an interesting bit of trivia. 23skidoo 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Four Stooges

I could have sworn Curly makes another cameo on a train with a hat and beard, and makes a kind of woooooo.... sound.

That's Correct, Curly Made a cameo in "Hold That Lion". I'm not sure Of the sound. I plan on watching my stooge boxset tonight to gather some info, it mentions it in there, i will see if i can desscern if it is indeed a "woo" sound DTGardner 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Moe/Curly?

I have noticed that in certain Shemp shorts (such as Shivering Sherlocks (1948)) Moe acts in such a way that it appears that he is imitating Curly. For instance, he makes the frustrated "Mmmmmmmmm" sound listed in the catchphrases, and he smacks his face with his hands like Curly did. Has anyone else noticed this? Fleagle11 20:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that Moe does pick up certain comic ideas that Curly used. I actually think that the scene from "I'm a Monkey's Uncle (1948)" in which Moe tries to club the duck before dinner is the most reminiscent of Curly. In this scene, he uses the 'mmmmmmmmmmmmm' sound, smacks his face with his hand, just like mentioned above, and he also jumps while swinging his club in a manner very much like Curly. In addition, the whole situation is one that Curly often found himself in, battling ducks and fish and many other animals, often saying "I'll get you YET!" just like Moe does in this scene. I completely agree that Moe and the other Stooges used many of Curly's characteristics in later shorts, however Shemp really doesn't. Being an ardent Shemp fan, I think this was a smart move by the gang to avoid making Shemp 'imitate' Curly, and rather become his own character! Of course his 'Eeb eeb eeb eeb' (or however you wish to represent it) is very similar in it's usage to Curly's 'woo woo woo woo'

Joe Palma

I think the article unintentionally misrepresents Joe Palma's role, and that Palma's role should be better defined:

He was then replaced first by a stand-in (Joe Palma), then by bald-headed "sissy" comedian Joe Besser, and eventually by Joe "Curly-Joe" DeRita.

This statement implies an equality among Palma, Besser, and DeRita as members of the Three Stooges, which is inaccurate. Palma was indeed a stand-in for Shemp. That is, he was actually meant to be Shemp, as far as the audience was concerned. In that sense, he didn't "replace" Shemp in the way that Besser and DeRita did, by becoming the third Stooge. Palma wasn't the third Stooge, he was portraying the third Stooge, which was the deceased Shemp.

Archived footage of Shemp, combined with new footage of his stand-in, Joe Palma (filmed from behind or with his face hidden), were used to finish the last four films on Shemp's contract.

This statement supports the notion that Palma wasn't considered a third Stooge, or as a member equal in stature to Besser and DeRita, but was simply intended to be a double for Shemp. This statement more accurately defines Palma's role.

Palma should be removed from the "Members" list. Palma was never considered the third Stooge, never billed as the third Stooge, and only appeared in films to portray Shemp. Palma should not be considered of equal stature as Moe, Larry, Curly, Shemp, Joe Besser, and Joe DeRita. However, Palma's unusual role as a double for Shemp should be, and is, provided adequate description in the article. The statement about Palma in the introduction simply needs to be either excised or rewritten to correctly define Palma's role. MaxKimball 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the opening of the article accordingly. Does it address you concerns adequately? -- Davidkevin 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Women and the stooges

I'd like to add something about why women seem to hate the Stooges so much. Yet, perhaps in the younger generation, some are beginning to dissent from the prevailing dogmas and bias. A trio of very charming amateur comediennes has produced a wonderful "three Stoogettes" video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW6eg8jrbdg

Shall we explore this issue? Is there change in the wind? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.73.102 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

See my contribution "Stooge Critical Theory". Perhaps women hate the Stooges because they do not feel their dignity under constant assault in authoritarian institutions in the way of men and don't see the point of reconciling themselves to this assault.

One woman, a technical writer at a Silicon Valley company at which I worked in the 1980s, in which male techs were reacting to constant down-sizing and "market" pressures by Stooge attacks and other forms of clownish behavior including "Bob and Doug MacKenzie" riffs, wondered aloud to me why the Stooges, so obviously dreck in comparision to Charlie Chaplin, were so popular, being toxic waste of the Great Depression.

Perhaps women hate the knuckleheads because the films were garbage, made under exploiting circumstances, which so overworked the actual PEOPLE behind the personae of the knuckleheads that they died of job-related illnesses without any workmen's comp.

"Liking the Stooges" isn't hip. It's pathetic.

Wow...the above comments are really off the wall. You might not be a Stooge fan, but that really says more about an absence of comedic appreciation in you than it does about that of anyone else. The circumstances under which the Stooges worked are interesting and certainly unfortunate...but they have absolutely nothing to do with the performances themselves. Anyone who would refuse to appreciate their work because of the circumstances of its creation is really the pathetic one. Is it ok to appreciate a painting done by an artist who is so miserable they commit suicide? Or would you consider the support of their work to somehow be tantamount to supporting suicide itself?

If your post has any merit at all, it is that it gives us the opportunity to explore the modern and horribly irrational need to have Big Brother support us and take care of us in everything we do via your comment about the Stooges not having workman's comp. The guys were doing something they loved and could have exited that career at any time if they felt they were being treated unfairly. Moe managed to take the money he made and make it work for him so that he was comfortable throughout his life (and he helped the others do the same to a lesser extent).

Is it unfortunate that they were mistreated by the studio? Certainly, but they were big boys and I can't imagine they would approve of the idea that their work should go unappreciated simply to avoid supporting the "evil" corporation which made so much money off of their sweat and blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.14.13 (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tools

Y'know when Moe hits Curly on the head with a pick, that would kill you and I wanna know if they used real tools or they made fake ones. Because hitting someone on head with a pick, slicing someone on the head with a saw or hitting someone with an axe would kill you in real life but in the Three Stooges, it doesn't kill them instead they get seriously injured.

I believe you answered your own question. Different techniques were used depending on circumstances, camera angles, etc....but it is safe to say that no actual dangerous tools were used to hit the Stooges in the heads...any saw, pick, etc. which was required to actually make contact with a stooge would have been fake. Sometimes you can tell by watching the shorts...I can think of one instance in particular where rocks are falling on their heads and it is obvious they are styrofoam or some other light substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.14.13 (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they had styrofoam then, but it could be papier mache or however it's spelled. The appearance of "harm" is enhanced by sound effects, such as the louder-than-realistic slap of the face, the bass-drum beat when hit in the stomach, or someone hits another over the head with a ball-peen hammer and it makes a loud metalic "ping". There would be a soundtrack effect from striking an anvil or some such, and probably using a rubber prop in the film. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as rocks, the end of one short had the Stooges in the prison yard breaking rocks over Curly's head, and as Moe and Larry place another rock on Curly's head, Curly says "Hey, that's a real one, I'm no fool!" while Larry gives Moe a knowing look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.231.204 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Catchphrases

Somebody needs to provide a 3rd party reliable source that notes these as catchphrases or remove them as Original Research. 24.4.253.249 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Quick-fail due to no sources. Alientraveller 09:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

References

The information i provided for this article came from This DVD: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Stooges-Story/dp/B00005B1WV/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7292640-8215212?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1189965361&sr=8-1

I could cite every specific point that was taken, but is there a way to just generally cite an article from a source, without just doing it for a specific part?

DTGardner 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Vast Improvement! Good Enough for GA?

The article has improved dramatically since my last edit to this article last month. Maybe it's time to re-nominate it for good article status... — Cinemaniac (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Cinemaniac (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ga review

Sorry but I'm failing this article per the Good Article criteria. If you disagree feel free to list it at WP:GAR

• First of the fair use rationales for the images are weak, such as "used to illustrate subject"
• Image:Stoogelogo.gif

Image:Stooge-curly.jpeg

Image:Stooge-shemp.jpeg

Image:Stooges-joe.jpeg

Image:Stooges-cj.jpeg

Image:Emilstooge.jpg

Image:Stooges3436.jpg

Image:NewSDMovies 3Stooges.JPG

These images all fail the fair use criteria because they are larger than 300x300 pixels and have no fair use rationale.

• The article has a lot of layout problems, books should be at the bottom of the article, members should be moved above references, the Shorts section should instead be a See also section, move the lists towards the bottom of the article
• There is white space between many sections
• References come after punctuation, [19]. should be .[19]
• Keep the members date/birth dates separate to their own article
• Long-awaited DVD release - is not an encyclopedic title as it is opinion
• full dates such as October 30, 2007 should appear October 30, 2007
• [citation needed] tag
• Web references need to show publisher, retrieve date etc, check Template:Cite web and here to see the result
• Years by themselves should not be linked - 1955
• Healy would attempt to sing or tell jokes while - "or" implies he did one or the other
• The offer was withdrawn, and after Howard, Fine and Howard learned
• The combinations is almost the same as members but without as much detail
• No need for links to books in the book section
• Music needs references

The main problems with the article are the huge images and layout. I thought i was coming to the end of the article when the books section came up but then it goes back into article mode. You need to reorganize it, keep history and TV sections together, move lists to the bottom, make the images smaller, also not sure why so much copyrighted pictures are necessary. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

I am working on a template:navbox for the Three Stooges, to tie them together better. Feel free to help out. Please note that it is based on the Moe, Shemp, Larry and Curly cast. See Template:ThreeStooges. StevePrutz (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty much completed now. I tried not to overdo the links and keep it simple. StevePrutz (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered Template:3stoogesfeaturefilms. Feel free to improve upon that one as well. StevePrutz (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline Contradiction

In the article it says the stooges started in 1925 but later it says 1923. Also, later in the article it says that there was a gap in 1926-1929 which is not mentioned at all in the original history. I think this needs to be straightened out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenW (talk • contribs) 04:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Larry/Louis/Levi/Andrew

This article says "Larry Fine (born Louis (Levi) Feinberg)" while the Larry Fine article says "Larry was born to a Jewish family as Andrew Louis Feinberg". I'm not even sure what "born Louis (Levi)..." means. Gr8white (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

After researching and finding all reliable sources agreeing I edited the other article to match this one. The name "Andrew" was added there supposedly based on A&E biography. Interestingly the official stooges site gives his birth name as Louis Fienberg which is almost certainly erroneous. Gr8white (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Emilstooge.jpg

The image File:Emilstooge.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Healthywealthy.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 movie

Is it worth noting that on the Internet Database move website the rumored action are Johnny Depp for Moe and Sean Penn for Larry? Havestory88 (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Bergeron

Tom Bergeron announced that he found his lost interviews with Moe Howard on the Howard Stern Show (Sirius Satellite Radio). The yare putting together a one hour Three Stooges special where he'll play all those audio interviews including one with Larry Fine. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The movie has been moved to reschedule some time in 2010

Huh?

This article states: "The act originally featured Moe Howard, brother Shemp Howard and longtime friend Larry Fine. Curly was later replaced by brother Shemp Howard, when Curly suffered a debilitating stroke in 1946. Shemp joined the act." This doesn't make sense, but then again it is Wiki, so this may be perfectly acceptable. Jmdeur (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It should read: "The act originally featured Moe Howard, brother Shemp Howard, and longtime friend Larry Fine. Curly was later replaced by brother Shemp, who rejoined the act when Curly suffered a debilitating stroke in 1946." Your Wikipedia-bashing is uncalled-for and unacceptable from a Wikipedia editor. rowley (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sean Penn back on?

I have just read on a couple of websites, that Paul has been booted, and due to the divorce of Sean Pean and his wife, he will be back in the movie. Yet on the article of the movie it states that Paul is still in the film. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljwman2 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of the Stooge

I think there should be a dictionary definition of a stooge here for clarity-Websters maybe? 78.149.237.224 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

December 28, 2010 edits

I have reverted a number of substantial edits which contain good and useful information but which are completely uncited and contain multiple examples of POV. If possible, the editor should resubmit them with inline citations and in an objective style that does not contain opinion words such as "legendary," "brilliant," and other terms which convey a subjective and non-encyclopedic sense to the material. Thanks.Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I considered reverting myself but figured someone else would probably take care of it. Gr8white (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

More POV: "Upon Shemp's return, the quality of the films improved (the last few efforts with Curly were hampered by his illness and inability to perform to his usual standard). Entries like Out West, Squareheads of the Round Table, and Punchy Cowpunchers proved that Shemp, although a different kind of performer than Curly, was a professional, gifted comedian. More often than not, his comedic timing buoys relatively weak material; one the finest entries in the series, Brideless Groom, was made during this period." I'm not sure how to fix this without just deleting the entire section. Gr8white (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's Afraid of Mother Goose?

Would there be anyplace in this article to mention the Stooges' short (but SPEAKING) part as "the three men in a tub" (wearing "longjohns") in the 1967 "Who's Afraid of Mother Goose?" (the title a parody of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, itself a take-off on the "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" song from Disney's 1932 Three Little Pigs — but I digress) episode of ABC's "World-of-Disney"-like anthology series Off to See the Wizard? 108.1.68.102 (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph

The second paragraph seems to focus way too much on their deaths as the the three stooges was some sort tragic event. I sure don't see other articles on TV series go, "oh this guy died then from stroke, and that guy eventually died of cancer, and the death of the other guy was due to that, and he died when..." We all know everybody at that time died now, so why be so detailed? Isn't there more than death that could possibly fit in the second paragraph?? 173.183.79.81 (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a quick summary of the evolution of the Stooges team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Plural or singular?

There's just been a tiny edit skirmish where someone "corrected" "The Three Stooges were an American vaudeville and comedy act..." to "The Three Stooges was an American vaudeville and comedy act...", then it was reverted. Sadly, neither edit was accompanied by an Edit summary. Pedantically, the first edit was correct, since the sentence describes a single comedy act. But the original and reverted to usage is probably more common. Do we go with pedantically correct usage, or sloppy common usage? HiLo48 (talk)

Pedantic is right, but apparently not pedantic enough, in the sense that the "pedant" didn't do enough research. As most grammarians and usage sources (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm, for example) agree, the rules for verbs associated with collective nouns vary depending on the wording of the name and the concept of the specific group. Examples suggested by some of these guides make it pretty clear: The Mamas and the Papas are a rock group. Metallica is, too. The Yankees are a sports team. Our Gang is a comedy team. The Ritz Brothers are a comedy team. By this widely accepted guideline, the Three Stooges are a comedy team. Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article has been marked for a neutrality check. There are far too many instances of opinions being included regarding the performers, their films, their colleagues, and the value of their work for this article to be entirely objective. Describing various films or performers as "brilliant," "funny," "the best," "the worst" or other POV descriptions without ascribing those opinions to cited sources violates WP guidelines for neutrality. I invite editors to find ways to make clear how successful this team was and how many people appreciated (or didn't appreciate) the work of the team and its co-workers without making it appear, as it often does now, that Wikipedia "thinks" these things. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuity

"During rehearsals, Healy received a more lucrative offer and found a loophole in his contract allowing him to leave the production." This doesn't make any sense. How can Healy leave and then still be there in there in the following paragraphs? kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Curly or Curley

I notice that the latter spelling is used in (at least some of) the short films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cospelero (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The spelling "Curley" was used in the first 14 shorts. Starting with the 15th short, Disorder in the Court, the more common "Curly" spelling was used for the remainder of Curly's run with the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.131.73.56 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sentence

This sentence doesn't make any sense because as written it is saying that Bergeron (the host) was convinced to do the special after learning that he himself was a fan.

"The television host had the tapes in storage for many years and was convinced on-air during an interview with Stern to bring them in and turn it into a special, upon learning how much of a fan Bergeron was of the Three Stooges, as is he."

I'm guessing what was intended was that Stern convinced him to do the special after learning that Bergeron was a fan but unfortunately there's no reference so I couldn't verify that and just trimmed it. The rest of that section (Radio) is also a little awkward and could use some work. Gr8white (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Did the Three Stooges actually say something like "Vokh Tyokh Tyokh" ??

I thought this would be a good place to find some Stooges scholars. My band just recorded a song called "Vokh Tyokh Tyokh" by Joseph Rumshinsky and several Yiddishists have told us (independently) that the Three Stooges said something like this in their movies, and that they used Yiddish phrases in general. Can anybody tell me if this is actually true? Thanks Jane Peppler (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In general, the Stooges didn't do "Jewish humor". It was just pure slapstick. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Never heard "Vokh Tyokh Tyokh", but "Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk" was common enough. Example here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This shouldn't have a television InfoBox

This article shouldn't have a television infobox because the films were initially released in theaters. They weren't shown on TV until the 1960's. 4.245.46.56 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

1922-1925: Before Larry

I notice that the article states in general that the "Three Stooges" (not by that name) began in 1925, but lists the "Stooge years" for Moe and Shemp as begining in 1922 (with Larry joining in '25). Then technically in the period 1922-25 there was a "stooge act", albeit only TWO, not THREE. Nevertheless, it would seem that this period should be considered part of their history, and there properly ought to be some discussion of that early period in the article, such as, the 1922 origins. (Nyuk nyuk nyuk!!) 108.1.68.189 (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point.RJ4 (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality II

I'm tagging the article for POV issues; there is non-neutral language littered throughout the article, as if written from a fan's perspective. Someone who is interested will have to rewrite the offending language throughout before the tag should be removed.--Chimino (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you give us some examples? What sort of "non-neutral language" are we talking about? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 12:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I presume it's because of unsourced and unattributed comments like "Almost overnight, the quality of the Stooge shorts declined." LittleJerry (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't think it's right for us to have to guess as to what language Chimino was offended by. Care to give us some clues - or better still Be Bold and reword it yourself? Without such direction the tag has to be removed as useless. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Don't put hit-and-run tags on articles if you aren't going to stay around and explain what you mean. Primium mobile (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Content and writing style

I have tagged the article for issues with tone and peacock terms. Much of the article is written using flowery terms to describe the quality of the act and the actors at various points in time. Many of these statements are sourced from books, and the way they are written make me worry that some of the article may actually contain copyvio material or at least close paraphrasing, but I don't have the resources to determine if that's actually true. I note that this article has also been tagged as non-NPOV before, but the tag was removed without action simply because the tagger didn't give enough examples or "stay around and explain what [they] mean[t]". I don't think that's the right way to handle such a tagging; I think it's fairly clear to any experienced Wikipedian that much of the article needs to be rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:Writing better articles. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The objection to the previous tag was a valid one; we should not have to guess what passages offend you. "It should be obvious" is not a reasonable answer. Please give us some clues - or better yet, Be Bold and rewrite it yourself. Otherwise, this tag will be removed just as the last one was. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 02:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've already stated, nearly every paragraph contains issues with tone and peacock terms. Here's just one example:

Within their first year at Columbia, the Stooges became wildly popular. Realizing this, Columbia Pictures president Harry Cohn used the Stooges as leverage, as the demand for their films was so great that he eventually refused to supply exhibitors with the trio's shorts unless they also agreed to book some of the studio's mediocre B movies. Cohn also saw to it that the Stooges remained ignorant of their popularity. During their 23 years at Columbia, the Stooges were never completely aware of their amazing drawing power at the box office. As their contracts with the studio included an open option that had to be renewed yearly, Cohn would tell the boys that the short subjects were in decline, which was not a complete fabrication (Cohn's yearly mantra was "the market for comedy shorts is dying out, fellas"). Thinking their days were numbered, the Stooges would cruelly sweat it out each and every year, with Cohn renewing their contract at the eleventh hour. This deception kept the insecure Stooges unaware of their true value, resulting in them having second thoughts about asking for a better contract without a yearly option. Cohn's scare tactics worked for all 23 years the Stooges were at Columbia; the team never once asked for—nor were they ever given—a salary increase. It was not until after they stopped making the shorts in December 1957 did Moe learn of Cohn's underhanded tactics, what a valuable commodity the Stooges had been for the ailing studio, and how many millions more the act could have earned. While Columbia offered theater owners an entire program of two-reel comedies (15 to 25 titles annually) featuring such stars as Buster Keaton, Andy Clyde, Charley Chase, and Hugh Herbert, the Stooge shorts were the most popular of all.

This single paragraph (chosen somewhat at random) has numerous examples of terminology and prose that are not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article, and reads as if it were written by someone with a strong affinity for the Three Stooges and how they were treated, someone who is trying to tell a story and get the reader to sympathize with who the author deems as the protagonists. This is also the reason why I worry that these sentences have been lifted straight out of a book on the subject. Just as you consider "it should be obvious" to not be a reasonable answer, I consider simply removing the tags without taking any other action to not be a reasonable response to the issues that have been raised on multiple occasions. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I came onto the talk page to similarly voice serious concern about the article's overly-promotional tone; I think that Gordon P. Hemsley gave more than enough examples to spare me the chore of explaining why all of the other adoring language is a problem. Personally, I've learned to not even try editing pages like this because there's usually a fan or two watching that will revert any rewording of sentences to make them more neutral. —xyzzy 11:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Colonel Bogey's March?

My recollection from 50 years ago were that Colonel Bogey's March was associated with the Stooges, but it is not mentioned in the "Music" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.144.82 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Emil Sitka as third stooge

I reverted the recent edit on the grounds that, as the article states, nothing came of the proposal other than a publicity still. The situation is not comparable to that of Gummo Marx, who performed as part of the Marx Brothers in vaudeville for several years before World War I. Ewulp (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Emil's position as the second middle-Stooge is very questionable. Personally, I consider him to be a Stooge and would have loved to see him on film in this capacity. Even though he was announced as an official Stooge, devolped his character and appearance, and even took several publicity stills with the team, it's probably best if he isn't listed as another full-fledged Stooge. But, I feel that he should be included in the Former Members list in the infobox, because he was technically a member, he just never performed with the team.... But as I said, his position is very questionable. JoelAtkinson51 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox shouldn't be for a television show, they were a comedy act, and didn't have anything on TV until the 1960's, over 30 years after they began performing. The Marx Brothers have a comedian infobox, so maybe that should be employed here as well? --2001:5B0:24FF:1EF0:0:0:0:3B (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly right, I think. I substituted the comedian ib; feel free to make any necessary tweaks. Ewulp (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

legal conflicts & "intellectual property"

i cannot seem to find any mention of the legal conflicts & "intellectual property" matters relating to the stooges & their families-as-heirs, in the article here.

surely that is a notable omission?

Lx 121 (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be notable if it's received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I'm not familiar with the (so called?) "intellectual property" matters to which you refer. But if there are good sources for the topic, I encourage you to add some information about it. Pburka (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

23 members?

Category:The Three Stooges members contains 23 names, a least 4 of them women. But we say in the article that there were only six (6) actors involved.

Who were these other 17 people and how do they get to be categorised as "Three Stooges members"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed misleading to categorize these 17 people as "members"; they were actors who appeared frequently (or at least several times) in Three Stooges films, and who are especially remembered for their work with the Stooges. But other actors who are remembered mostly for their work with the Stooges are not in the category (e.g., Phyllis Crane, Geneva Mitchell), while some actors who are in the category are not mentioned at all in the Three Stooges article (e.g., Bonnie Bonnell, Kenneth MacDonald); all of which suggests a certain arbitrariness and subjectivity, rather than something as defined as "membership". These actors' relationship to the Stooges was like that of Margaret Dumont to the Marx Brothers; she's in Category:Marx_Brothers, not Category:Marx Brothers members. Similarly, Category:The_Beatles_members lists only six people by name: John, Paul, George, Ringo, Stuart Sutcliffe, and Pete Best. All were members of the band; important associates like George Martin and Billy Preston are not listed (they're in the Fifth Beatle article).

I see there was a discussion about this last year, which resulted in a consensus to keep, but this seems mistaken to me. In the container category Category:People_by_organization, the Category:The Three Stooges members stands out as an anomaly. I'd favor moving the 17 supporting actors from Category:The Three Stooges members to Category:The Three Stooges. Ewulp (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That discussion was principally about whether to keep/delete the category, not about its content per se, although there were some points about content. I have no issue with the category existing, but just limiting it to the people who actually played Stooges, and I support your suggestion to move all other names to Category:The Three Stooges. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

On closer scrutiny I agree that the category is fine; it was just in the wrong container category. I've moved it from Category:People by organization to Category:American comedy troupes, where other comedy teams live. Ewulp (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A few moments ?

Curly returned ‘in a few moments’ with his head shaved ? Why was this not mentioned in the Guiness Book of Records ?

How about ‘he returned not long afterwards with his head shaved’ ?

‘A few moments’ to me suggests ten seconds or less, which exceeds credulence. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:131:C617:6062:D941 (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)