Talk:The Aristocrats/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Previous Discussion

I don't think that the example joke needs to be cited. I mean, it could be anybody's joke. Isn't it in public domain? Vreezkid (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont get it. really.--209.213.92.25 18:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It plays on the sterotype (British, at least) that Aritocrats(upper class people) are a bunch of inbred, fox killing, mad idiots, but no,the joke in all its forms ain't that funny really (I find anyway)

it's funny depending solely on the talent and presentation of the person telling the joke (i haven't seen the gilbert gottfried version, but i can imagine.....). there's nothing inherently funny about it, so it's not so much a "joke" (setup followed by punchline) as it is piece of performance art (as long as it's told----if it's acted out, its numerous sex crimes). and part of the "punchline" ("the aristocrats") is the pure dissonance between what goes on during the "act" and its name. the point of the movie is that each comic brings his/her own thing to the joke. so, for example, the south park version (which is floating aroung on the internet) ends with the kids saying "i don't get it." that's then entire point of south park encapsulated in 45 seconds. the kids are toying with things they don't understand, which is funny. Binkymagnus 03:27, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Watch the south park episode. It's delivery, content, and above all else: context. Muchosucko 13:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is the worst joke ever. I never have trouble geting jokes, even ones that are obscure and bizarre, but after hearing this joke I was just thinking "what the hell?". The punchline is a punchline only in the vaguest sense of the word, its not funny, doesnt make all that sense, and if you have to actually sit down and think about how the punchline has anything to do with the joke (and judging by what you just said, i correctly figured it out) then the joke is just crap. I've heard the so-called "best versions" and none of them are very funny at all. Great setup, true, but a joke without any sort of decent punchline is not really a joke. Not funny at all. Just leaves you feeling ripped off in the end. --Uthar Wynn 01 06:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. Its an example of an anti-joe, as mentioned in the article, or anti-humor, which has a better article on Wikipedia. This would probably be a forgetable topic, were it not for the new movie coming out. I truly didn't know this was a joke going back to vaudeville -- I thought it was a random screentest by the South Park folks.

This is not an anti-joke, it's just that the audience typically know the punchline given the circles in which it's told. The humour is supposed to be derived from the way the act is described rather than the punchline itself. Reading a (necessarily) timid version on the web ain't going to cut it. Bombot 01:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A better punchline to the set-up would be: "The Internet!" --JLsoft 9:54, 29 Jul 2005

If I remember correctly, the joke is that people are willing to do ANYTHING to get into showbusiness, in addition to the delivery and content of the middle parts. Gwynplaine

No, there are three points to the joke:

• The punchline which implies civility and taste is lead into by the crudest humor that the teller can muster. It is an ironic juxtaposition.
• The teller of the joke has the opportunity to be as crude as they can, but at the same time must remain funny. This is a very difficult task, but done well it is irresistably funny.
• Because the punchline itself is only moderately amusing, and the rest of the joke is a difficult ad-lib, it has become a sort of in-joke among professional comedians who almost never use it in their acts, but often tell it among themselves.

THe movie makes all of these points much more eloquently than I can, but no, there's nothing wrong with you or the joke if you read it on paper and don't laugh. It's just not that kind of joke (though some of the versions are... that's a matter of the specifics of the version). -Harmil 02:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I get it. Its like the painter who frames a blank canvas, convinces one critic it's art and makes a million, while everyone is standing around admiring it and debating its meaning, he's off in the bahamas spending his money. Comedians everywhere are telling this joke and the story of the joke and saying its funny, then they're sitting back and watching us laugh and say we get it, all the time themselves knowing there's nothing to get because its not funny, and we are the joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.74.65 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 February 2007

Not quite. First off, let's try to stay focused on the article, and not make this a forum for discussing what we think about the joke. Second, keep in mind that this joke is almost never told to audiences (the film about the joke, which came along many decades later, aside). The "joke" isn't meant to be funny per se. It's meant to be a demonstration of how creative one can be with the material, and unless your audience is already familiar with the joke, that's not something they're going to appreciate. It's ad-lib and performance-art, and though you may disapprove of performance art for whatever reason, it is, nonetheless, art. -16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Del second example joke

We really don't need this. It's funny, it's cute, but it doesn't do anything beyond what the first example does. It adds heft to the article, but it doesn't say much. Perhaps someone wants to link outbound to the same joke.--Muchosucko 04:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Movie

Shouldn't we move the stuff about the movie into an article in its own right - the movie is (I understand) just about to start showing in U.S. theaters, and its sure to generate controversy and visitors? Middenface 13:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Of course, there should be another page for movie. Who can separate it ?!

Veracity of Historical Claims?

Is there any evidence that this joke really substantially exists outside of this movie? This brief article points out that the only source of information about the joke seems to be from 2001 and later, and that the whole existence of this joke may itself be a joke; most of what's been posted about it seems to derive from the movie and its press kit. Unfortunately, everything in this wikipedia article is unsourced, so it's unclear.

If it's fake -- and I think it might be -- I get the joke. The joke's on us. Ha Ha. --Muchosucko 19:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, in the film, which I have not seen yet, the book The Rationale of the Dirty Joke by Gershon Legman is cited as a documented account of the joke. The book is out of print, but it was published most recently in 1972 and should be available at libraries. --Veronique 05:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a book from 1998 that cites the joke. --69.175.239.209 06:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Exerpt of above book:Planncton goes into the tiny, dingy little office of Stanley Schwartz, a disreputable, snaky, low-life show business booking agent, and says, "I want you to look at an act." Stanley Schartz ... very different. What do you call yourselves?" Planncton says, "The Aristocrats." I hope you enjoyed this book. l f you didn't, why don't you go piss into a fan? And while ..." . Anyway, I got the Legman book. It's a perfect intellectual companion to this film. It reveals the psychological consequences of our jokes. It was published in 1968 during the sexual revolution of Kinsey. Legman cites Kinsey often. It comes in two volumes, each around 1000 pages long. The book has no index I could find. Various dirty jokes are categorized according to subject matter -- for example, sections dealing with penis jokes, jokes that make fun of vaginas, etc. etc. Legman first retells the joke and discusses the psychological significance of them. The only section that I could see the Aristocrats joke fit into was the chapter titled "Mocking Authority Figures." p.744. He talks about jokes that make fun of the police, the rich, and especially Kings and Royalty. I couldn't find the word "Aristocrats" in any of the discussions or joke examples. I couldn't find the format of the Aristocrats joke. I might have missed something, I wish Google Print archived this. Since there is no index, I can see no way of efficiently scanning for the "Aristocrats" keyword.--Muchosucko 08:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read about this joke alot in the past week starting in Entertainment Weekly and today there was an msnbc article on the new movie. In it the films director Paul Provenza says that in the film, 94 year old entertainment historian Jay Marshall(recently deceased) accounts to have at seven years old, heard the joke while working in vaudeville from an old man who alleged to have heard it when he was a kid. So they are placing the joke at at least as late as the late 19th century. It sounds a bit shakey sure but Im sure it would be tough to date "Why did the chicken cross the road?" too. TonyJoe 15:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Jay Marshall always claimed to have told the joke to Legman. He said that Legman asked him to tell the dirty jokes he knew (that could've taken days) but not to be offended when he didn't laugh because he had heard every dirty joke before and just wanted to hear how Jay told them. Jay started with "The Aristocrats" and was the first person to have told it to Legman. If you read Legman's entry for the joke it is clear that he didn't get it. 67.41.62.132 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The First World War effectively ended aristocratic power in the world. But, before 1914, concern with the class difference between aristocrats and non-aristocrats was very active. Much literature reflects this theme. Therefore, it seems that the joke probably originated circa 1900.Lestrade 18:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

This joke has nothing to do with mocking upper-class stereotypes, as we can see from the alternate punchlines "The Debonaires" and "The Sophisticates". It is first of all a reference to the vaudeville tradition of suggesting an act's classiness with a highfalutin title. Given the grunginess of the vaudeville scene, there was always a certain irony to this custom. The humor of the joke derives from the EXTREME contrast between the low, vulgar, offensive nature of the act, and the refinement, delicacy and restraint suggested by its title. Of course, if we have to explain it, it ain't funny! BTW, should this item have a link to Inherently Funny Words? --Eyeresist 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you didn't get the joke. The humor lies in the stereotypical behavior of aristocrats, debonaires, sophisticates, and other "upper" class people. See British tabloids for further details. User:Aelffin 198.45.18.84 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the hoax theory, I think proponents on the historical veracity side of the argument seem to be missing the point -- the hoax theory is not that Penn Jillette or the 2005 film's producers manufactured the joke, it is that they manufactured the legend surrounding the joke. And there is still no evidence of the legend external to the movie. Not that comedians tell the joke only to each other, nor that it was Johnny Carson's favorite joke, nor that Chevy Chase used to hold parties devoted exclusively to telling the joke in secret. That part of the "history" of the joke remains unverified.DroneStrum (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternate "punchlines"

Heard a discussion about the joke and movie on the radio the other day. Alernative punchlines (titles for the act) were discussed, and one may be funnier or easier to get: "The Sophisticates!" DavidH 18:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

In the movie, they mention this as an alternate punchline for audiences that may not understand the irony of "Aristocrats". There's a some agreement among them that it's a better line; should we create a redirect/add it to the first para? Nae'blis 20:37:09, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Example

As stated in the introduction, this joke is supposedly all about shock value, but the current example is terrible. It's too tasteless. It doesn't add anything to the article, besides giving it shock value of its own, which isn't why we have Wikipedia. Everything about it is trollish, as far as I can see: it's a long, offensive ramble written by an anonymous editor--although it's an AOL IP, the edits from around the same time[1] (undoubtedly his) are quite trollish in nature. The only reason it's here is because, as luck would have it, it illustrates the subject of the article with some success. I'm sure it can be done better, though, and it should be. I'm tempted to remove it for now, but I'll have to think about it. EldKatt (Talk) 18:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• That example looks to me like a pretty typical telling of the joke. A version that wasn't too tasteless would miss the point. --Ian Maxwell 02:54, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • You do have a point. But it bothers me that obvious trolling can stay just because it happens to fit into the page. If there were a real example that we could quote (as opposed to this home-made one) I would certainly prefer it. Worth noting is that my point isn't "think of the children". It's not just tasteless (which in itself might indeed be acceptable); it's also badly written and incoherent, although I'd rather not go through all its problems sentence by sentence here. EldKatt (Talk) 10:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The only problem that I have with the example is this: it violates the form. Many tellers violate the form, but the first telling should probably be one which delivers the joke quite simply. The act and the agent should remain seperate. A section on variations would be fine. I may re-write it myself later on if I get around to it. -Harmil 02:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The example is not a good example, because ordinarily the story doesn't involve the agent as an actor in the skit, but merely as a handy straight man. Nae'blis 20:43:44, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the example with one which keeps to the basic form, has bestiality, incest, and a simple performance to give it a sense of actual show-business. It's certainly not the best version of the joke, but the goal is to convey the basic presentation, and I think it does that acceptably. -Harmil 10:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a big improvement. Good work. EldKatt (Talk) 11:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I never thought I would say this, but I feel a bit like Howie Mandel. In the documentary, he said, "this is the only way you can say 'cunt' for 5 minutes straight and someone says, 'Perfect, that's just what we were looking for!'" -Harmil 15:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• snort* Nevertheless, you done good. Nae'blis 16:45:13, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Hoax theory?

Is this really worth having in the entry? Some guy thought it was fake, turns out he was wrong. Can I add "Spinn read the entry, saw that Lore thought it was fake, commented on same"?

I think this is worth having. Wikipedia often goes a bit out of its way to correct misinformation. - Haukurth 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Even aside from the weakness of that explanation (the misinformation was corrected at its source within 24 hours of its posting, without Wikipedia's interference), this seems like an exceedingly easy way to get put in a listing. Admittedly Lore has a much larger footprint on the Net than I do, but it seems like I should start posting hoax theories about a variety of subjects to get some free Wikipedia-sponsored advertising. - Spinn2 21:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the point a bit more strongly.

I don't think someone's off-the-cuff weblog entry, disproven less than 24 hours after it was made, is a worthy addition to this entry. It has no impact on the topic, nor does it seem like "someone had a day where they thought this was a hoax" would be useful reference material.

Discuss.

(p.s.: if anything, the link that's already in "external links" is about the level of footnote it deserves, if at all, in my opinion.)

Spinn2 19:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have nothing to discuss, as you've made your point well. EldKatt (Talk) 19:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hoax versus history: the uncertainty should be stated

As I see it, we have no very good verifiable evidence that the joke is old, and no very good source for the suggestion that it's a hoax. I believe that the article should at least indicate that the authenticity of the joke, as being a century-old tradition among comics, is questionable.

I fear that this sort of falls into the "secret society" category, i.e. it is so filthy that if it did exist prior to the Sexual revolution you would not necessarily expect its existence to have been recorded in print. Still, you'd think that memoirs and reminiscences of old vaudevillians might at least refer to it by name without spelling out its details. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'm with you on this, though...I felt bad deleting the parts where people had done research with links and such. Probably I should have recast the history rather than delete the whole section. Spinn2 14:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, put in a possible rework. Since the claim is that it's been around for decades, an "oldest known reference" section seems to make sense. I dropped the Jackie Martling part because I'm not sure that every appearance is worth mentioning...but I'm divided on that. Might make sense for a "history" section, but...well, maybe the "history" section in itself is flawed? Since I'm not sure 2005 documentary should be under it...agh geez I should work these things out before I get over here to talk about it. Let me just do one last edit and I'll leave it alone for now. Spinn2 15:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

An article about the film in The Guardian contains a direct quote from (UK-based) humourist Barry Cryer that "I'm 70, and I first heard it 50 years ago. But for us, the punchline wasn't The Aristocrats, it was the Debonairs or the Sophisticates, which is just as funny." I don't know what level of proof is necessary for this article, but it is a claim of its age, at least. Telsa 16:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's interesting enough to mention in the article, so I've done so. I also changed the name of the section from "earliest known reference" to "early references" to give more wiggle-room. The problem, of course, is that the date of the article is 2005. Supposing that it were a hoax, it is likely that many people would claim to have heard of it--either from people who know it's a hoax and enjoy its perpetration, or from people who don't know it's a hoax and don't want to be thought of as not belonging to the inner circle. One reference in a book printed in 1975 is worth ten saying in 2005 that they'd heard it fifty years ago. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to say it...put "anecdotal evidence" or something...but I think changing the heading makes it easier. --Spinn 19:20, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

So, is the Walt Disney film "The Aristocats"...

...an in-joke? I have to wonder. The Disney people were not above being sly. During the 1940s and 50s their animators did a certain amount of not exactly porn, but let's say PG-13-rated, pinup-level animated cartoons that didn't see the light of day until recently. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. "Aristocrat" is a fairly common word for an upper-class person. They were simply punning. Cigarette 21:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but this being Hollywood it's quite possible someone in Disney's organization might have thought it funny to use the same title as the joke, since at the time the joke wasn't widely known outside certain circles. 23skidoo 18:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So a film is made about a family of upper-class cats with clear references to the French revolution is called The Aristocats. Perhaps it might be something to do with the plot of the film, but NO, it has to be a reference to a rarely-told joke! ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 12:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Example joke?

Could I transcribe here one or both versions of this joke from the StarkCast, to give people a better idea of the joke? —Frungi 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

First off, you can't do so without the owner of the material agreeing to license the transcripts under the GFDL. This point is not a matter of debate, but Wikipedia policy.

However, I'm also not sure that we need more than one version of the joke. The goal is not to amuse the readers of Wikipedia, but to explain. Fot the most part, any telling of the joke is here more as a reference to the description of the parts and purpose of the joke. To add more versions does not help the reader understand the article further. If there's something that we don't cover that is widely used in tellings of the joke, we should add a note about it (e.g. the way we mention scatalogical humor), but not whole alternate versions. -Harmil 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, quotations need not be released under the GPL. The joke itself is not under copyright, and quoting it from a larger work would just be fair use. Anyways, while I agree that we need not have too many versions of the joke on this page, having one that was never actually told (except here) is flat out original research. — trlkly 03:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer

I removed the Schopenhauer section. Unless there's a "so-and-so said the joke vindicates Schopenhauer's theory of comedy", it's no more relevant than citing Bergson, Freud, Nietzsche, Derrida, or anyone else who's taken frivolity seriously.

chocolateboy 13:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Aristocats

I am unconvinced by Matt Gies' argument that "What links here" provides evidence the disambiguation notice is not required. A one-letter typo in the search engine will bring someone to an article about an obscene joke, rather than the Disney movie they expected. Where is the harm in the dab notice? -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this opinion.-Colin Kimbrell 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Then they can look and see they made a typo. that isn't so hard.

Yes, anybody remotely familiar with the movie knows that it's a movie full of cats. The "cats" part would be the least likely place to make a mistake. I would remove it again, but that would be my third reversion. So I'll leave this to others to decide. Matt Gies 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the one-sentence notice currently at the top of the article, i.e.

For the 1970 Disney animated film with a similar title, see The Aristocats.

is entirely appropriate and should be kept. I for one frequently commit typos that consist of typing a correctly spelled word when I meant to type a misspelled word (trademark, etc.). We should help the reader who has made a mistake, not scorn them for being careless.

If it made anyone feel better, it could be put in smaller type, e.g.

For the 1970 Disney animated film with a similar title, see The Aristocats.

Dpbsmith (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here to hear about an over-the-top crude joke, not a disney movie. They're like opposites. Think about it.

User:71.104.188.69 02:04, 8 Sunday 2006 (PST)

A smaller font size wouldn't bother me.-Colin Kimbrell 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just came in. Read this discussion and thought: what are Wikipedia's standards on disambiguation links or pages? After looking around a bit, my opinion is that the link shouldn't be there.

• For example, should we expect there should be a further disambiguation page for D'Urville Island because people might type it in without the apostrophe?
• Wikipedia:Disambiguation says that disambiguation links are generally for explaining different uses of the same term, not misspellings of the term. Farther down in Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Issues: "Links to misspellings should not be added when no other disambiguation takes place, unless they are notable enough to be added inline in the article." My personal opinion is that this one isn't notable enough (but then it's the difference of opinion that's fueling this, I suppose).
• Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Probably the only reason this conversation exists is because of the stark contrast in content between the two topics, but I don't think "someone may be offended" is a valid reason for putting the link.

And to answer your question, "where is the harm?" ...Wikipedia already has enough issues with keeping standards. I think there's no need to upset people unneccesarily, but I see no need to pander to them, either. I'm pretty sure if someone got to this page looking for The Aristocats they'd figure out pretty quickly they're in the wrong place. Even without the crudeness of the example, they should be able to work it out by the fifth (non-parenthesized) word of the article: "The Aristocrats is a joke."

If they read past the first two paragraphs, then they're learning what The Aristocrats is, not blindly stumbling helplessly through a crass world of rudeness on which we have thoughtlessly set them through the link's omission. In fact I was going to say that a content disclaimer might make more sense, if that's your concern, but this disclaimer exists explictly in Wikipedia's content disclaimer, which Wikipedia:No_disclaimer_templates explicitly says not to duplicate.

--Spinn 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, the use of dab statements at the start of articles is widespread in Wikipedia. Placing one here is entirely appropriate given that it is a not-uncommon typo. Plus there are a lot of folks -- my parents are two -- who think the cartoon is called The Aristocrats. 23skidoo 18:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Spinn, your comments make sense, but miss a rather important point. This is a commonly made mistake, and one that is even brought up in the movie. Helping out those who make this obvious and common mistake doesn't hurt anyone, and helps the overall value of Wikipedia. -Harmil 22:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, the fact people make this mistake is actually mentioned several times in the documentary. 23skidoo 17:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't remember it from the movie, but I agree that the disab link should stay. There's no harm to it, at worst someone who is looking for the joke here would laugh, otherwise they'd ignore it. Even if Wikipedia isn't censored (and I agree that it shouldn't be), we still want to minimize exposing kids to stuff like this by accident. And we do have warnings on the shock site articles, about how the links contain bad stuff. --ZachPruckowski 03:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of second example

I'm always open to a different example if someone thinks we missed something (violence is the only item I can think of that I left out, and I did so because most versions of the joke do not involve violence). That said, the version that someone put up recently had several problems (and while I wasn't the one who removed it, I would have): it was poorly written; tended toward anatomically impossible acts (e.g. anal sex with a newborn); had clearly not been spell-checked; was inserted as a second example, which we certainly don't need; and consisted of a single, unformatted paragraph. If there's an improvement to be made, why not bring it here to the talk page where we can hash it out. Thanks. -Harmil 17:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who removed it, mainly because the sexual acts were so explicitly stated that it didn't suit here in the article. In my opinion an example is just and example and we do not need an other one. The current one will do just fine. Cpt. Morgan 07:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The original example illustrated the form of the joke. That's all we need here. If anyone wants to give more examples, then they can add links to the applicable webpages. 23skidoo 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I again removed an obscene example of the joke today. Cpt. Morgan 10:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Two days ago the example was replaced by a quite explicit one by User:68.38.30.133. I removed it and replaced it with the original, neutral, example. As discussed before, this is an encyclopedia, not a porn site, and the neutral joke is sufficient to explain the idea. Please refer to more explicit examples only by linking to other sites. Cpt. Morgan 13:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The current version was deleted by another user today as being offensive. I contend that it's impossible to give an example of the joke without being offensive (and it's certainly less offensive than the versions used previously), so I have reverted the deletion. 23skidoo 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly we can agree that, without discussion here, blanking of an entire section of the article is revertable. If someone made a decent, non-censorship case for removal here, I do think we should consider it and act on the resulting consensus, but so far I haven't heard an argument for that that I would personally agree with. -Harmil 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's a consensus to remove it, then that's one thing. But to use "offensive" as a reason for deleting a section (or anything else) is POV unless there's a clear cut case (like, say, an unnecessary racial slur or what have you). There are certainly far more potentially offensive articles in Wikipedia based upon their titles alone. Is there not a tag that can be used (perhaps in lieu of the spoiler tag) warning readers of potentially offensive content? That might be one way around things. 23skidoo 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I have my doubts about the inclusion of any example, not because it is obscene, but because it is difficult for Wikipedia to do justice to the joke in just one example. External links would do this better, I think. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The intent isn't to give the reader a laugh, but to illustrate the form of the joke. I think it's even stated in the movie that the joke itself is not funny, especially written down. So I can't really see an external link being any better. A possible alternative might be to add a video file to the article (I think that can be done though I don't know how) showing someone performing the joke. But of course then you run into all sorts of copyvio situations. 23skidoo 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The current example is terrible, and including it is substantially worse than not having an example at all. There's no "form" of the joke, and opposing aspects of it for being "anatomically impossible" is totally missing the mark. If the powers that be at wikipedia aren't comfortable with graphic descriptions, it'd be MUCH better to simply say so in the article and link to external sites that tell the joke properly. A link to a video of the South Park version would be ideal, it takes a meta view on the joke that would explain it to the "I don't get it" folks. It illustrates that the reaction of the crowd and the depravity of the monologue is the "punchline". 141.154.49.40 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooops

Seems my reversion did the opposite of what I intended. Thanks to 23skidoo for catching that! -Harmil 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

South Park

I added a paragraph about the joke being told on South Park, and outlinked to a clip of it. I think it was important to include it to show how a lot of people don't get the joke.

• That version of the joke is actually from the film, The Aristocrats. The joke itself is far too filthy to have been shown on Comedy Central during South Park's usual time slot. (Ibaranoff24 05:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

• YouTube has the Aristocrats clip from South Park. WARNING! This video contains uncensored material, and excessive sexual references. Click here to view --69.67.235.179

Yes, we all know about YouTube's pile of copyright violations. The problem is that this is from the movie, and the movie has its own page. Links to copyright violations aren't a good thing, but links to copyright violations on the wrong page are just silly. -Harmil 04:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether its from the movie or not doesn't matter if it is a good example of the joke (I don't know). This page is about the joke and a good example of the joke is appropriate. IMO. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The movie is nothing but good examples of the joke. It is literally full of them. This is why we have an inline link to the article about the film. The article about the film has various links to information about it. This is as it should be. -Harmil 04:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The movie may have many good examples, but we only have the one available online. And a possible advantage of the South Park bit is that the creators, at least with the series, are generous about their copyright (this IS an issue we should have better information about). If there were no movie, the South Park clip would be a perfect addition to the article. It is not a forgone conclusion that having the movie article should make it more difficult for the reader to find this useful clip. (John User:Jwy talk) 13:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you count legal material, we have none of the movie content online. -Harmil 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you if its illegal, don't get me wrong. We should investigate the South Park policy about their material and if it applies to this clip. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pynchon Reference

The link between the joke and the passage cited on pp. 261 of the 1987 Viking publication of Gravity's Rainbow seems extremely tenuous. At the very least, the passage is certainly not a "version" of the joke. It is most likely coincidental that Pynchon describes the "indole people" as "aristocrats".

    "'You haven't spent much time with the indole crowd.  They're very elitist.  They see
    themselves at the end of a long European dialectic, generations of blighted grain, 
    ergotism, witches on broomsticks, community orgies, cantons lost up there in folds of 
    mountain that haven't known an unhallucinated day in the last 500 years - keepers of a 
    tradition, aristocrats-'"

Mfalvey1

I've removed both the South Park reference (which was inocorrect, as the joke was never meant to be aired on South Park) and the Pynchon reference as per your statement. If someone wants to re-add either, please cite a source to back up your claims. -Harmil 03:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case there's a more explicit reference to the joke in Gravity's Rainbow I've asked a friend of mine who darn near has the book memorized if he can recall any such reference. I never gave him any page number, so let's see if he comes back and cites the above (or another passage) without prodding. 23skidoo 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't get it

I just don't get it. Rintrah 09:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And, in fact, as has been expressed above, you should probably expect that. This joke does not have a traditional punchline. It is a performance piece that allows a comedian to violate the bounds of decorum among other comedians while demonstrating their ability. The joke, in and of itself, is not funny (slightly ironic, but not funny). It is, however, a notable joke. Thus, Wikipedia has an article for it. -Harmil 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Cls14 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does the punchline 'The Aristocrats' make it funny? An Aristocrat is seen of the highest nobility. Quite the opposite to what is depicted in this joke. Is that the funny part? There must be more. Cause it's really not that funny to be this famous. Donnyj (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Donnyj

As was already said, jokes needn't be funny to famous. When is the last time you heard somebody laugh at "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Anyways, there has always been an uneasiness at the "poshness" of the Aristocrat class. The idea is that they aren't as great as they seem has been around a long time. Inbreeding, throwing away babies, joining sex clubs, etc, have already actually been noted in the nobility of old. It's not too big a leap to believe the original joke was making fun of that concept. It could be old topical humor.

Please note that any and all statements above are referencing the article, as any information given could be added to the article if properly sourced.
— trlkly 04:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t get it either. I can normally see the humour in almost anything, but not this. I am not saying the joke isn’t funny, because clearly a lot of people regard it very highly. What I am saying is that the article should attempt to explain why the joke is funny. Not just for the sake of making people laugh, but to actually get to the heart of what the joke is all about and what makes it special. At present, the article doesn’t address this issue at all. Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason the joke is so highly regarded has really nothing to do with the actual 'meaning' of the joke. The actual humor in the joke itself is of the social commentary sort. It essentially expresses the belief that societal elite (the 'Aristocrats', 'Sophisticates', etc.) whom are generally assumed to be above engaging in coarse behavior are, ironically, often the individuals that perpetrate the most grossly deviant acts (particularly sexually speaking). The father's naming of his family's act "The Aristocrats" is akin to a group of male pedophiles whose "routine" consists of raping young boys naming their act "The Parish Priests". The humor lies in its social commentary. As stated previously, though, the joke's humorous social commentary is not the reason it is highly regarded among comedians (which IS explained in the article). -70.251.101.134 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'd remove this and fix it myself, except I don't know what the actual joke would really consist of so I couldn't replace this paragraph with anything accurate... Either way, this isn't exactly encyclopedic: "Then the husband forcefully grabs his wife, knocks the baby out of her hands, rips off her clothes, and then starts deep kissing her while man-handling her huge tits and spanking her ass.

The father then stops kissing his wife, winds up and slugs her full on the nose, and sends her flying into the wall. The father then rips off his own clothes, moves over to his three children, and smacks the little boy and little girl until they both get knocked off their feet. The father then proceeds to squat and shit all over his wife on the floor, and soon the kids join in. Then the husband bends down, grabs a big handful of steaming shit from the pile, rubs it all over his face and starts yelling "Mammie! Mammie! Oh, Mammie!" while the kids pick up the wife and shove her head-first up her own ass." Wtf? 58.169.158.180 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As the first line of the article says: ". . .exceptionally transgressive dirty joke. . ." The above matches the description pretty well. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleged "Royal Family" punchline

I'm a Brit and I must say that I have never heard of the alleged "Royal Family" version of the punchline. It gets one mention in the film "The Aristocrats" as an idea for an alternate punchline, which was floated (but not used) by one of the Python team. I think some over-serious person is taking this half-remembered backstage anecdote direct from the film, getting it a bit jumbled up, and transforming it into A Historical Fact. I hereby (tan-tara!) recommend all the 'Royal Family' references for modification. And no, that's not because I love the Royal Family - They are probably one of the few real-life families whose behaviour is sufficiently jaw-dropping to actually upstage the joke. Garrick92 12:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Example restored

The example was removed after it was heavily vandalized. While I agree that the hacked up version that was there in November should have been removed, we never had any discussion about removal of the original example. If anyone feels that the example as it stands now should be removed, please discuss. Thanks. (Note: I wrote the example, as you can see from previous discussion. We needed an example that was short, original (for copyright reasons) and touched on most of the topics commonly used in the joke. Anyone who thinks it fails to meet those requirements should also feel free to speak up.) -Harmil 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A 1954 reference

The 1954 Steve Allen Tonight show embedded here includes a "throwaway" monologue line where he says "I used to do that in an act; we were called The Aristocrats", after taking off the Halloween costume he was wearing at the beginning of the show in a mock "striptease" act (he's fully clothed beneath it). Apparently it's an old joke even back then. *Dan T.* 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of references worth looking into

A search on Google Books finds a couple of fragmentary references that may be worth looking up for context to prove that this joke is actually old, and not just made up in recent years:

Lawrence Sanders, The Seduction of Peter S. (1983), p. 248: "'A great vaudeville act,' I said. 'What do they call themselves -- the Aristocrats?'"

Olivia Goldsmith, Flavor of the Month (1993), p. 83: "'You must be one of the Aristocrats,' she said, quoting the old vaudeville joke, too dirty to repeat. 'Yeah,' he said, getting the reference ...."

Granted, these are both fiction, but they may provide evidence for the older origins of the joke. --Metropolitan90 04:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dirtier

From what i hear, the joke example should be dirtier. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Define "dirtier", and explain your reasoning. The example as written is a demonstration of the form, not an attempt to tell a funny joke. -Harmil 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, in retrospect. Late, but nevertheless. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But... it gets worse...

So this guy walks into a software firm where he's managed to finagle a meeting with the CTO. He explaind he has this idea for a new piece of software.

The CTO replies that the company does not develop or distribute unsolicited software, but wishes the guy well as he tries to usher him out the door.

The guy stands his ground and explains. "See, this piece of software is really different and something special! It contains elements of many other software applications you already develop, but combines them in a more usefuol and unique fashion."

The CTO decides to hear him out, if only because the mention of using existing technologies form the company might indicate a possible copyright violation that he'd want proof of in the future. "Go on," he says.

The guy says, "Well, it works like this... first off, the user doesn't need to install ANYTHING. They go to our web page and by taking advantage of security gaps Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla have left for our use, we install the program automatically for them!"

The CTO looks uncomfortable, but says, "go on..."

The guy says, "So next, the software reads through all the user's private files. It also embeds itself in the kernel, to make absolutely sure it can stay around and maintain state. It uses a smart frame to parse out everything it can and build a personality profile on the user to determine his or her purchasing patterns, likes, dislikes, addictions, etc."

The CTO says, "uhm..."

The guy presses on, "At this point the data is sent back to the central database (physically located in North Korea to avoid those frustrating privacy laws the bleeding heart liberals have passed in the US). We then send the user emails about exciting new products they'd like, never letting them miss a single one. We can make sure we don't accidentally end up in their spam filters by using elements of their existing personal data to avoid the appearrance of being spam (as everything we have is targeted to them specifically, we're not spam of course, but annoying email applications might not understand that)."

"The system also monitors their files and makes sure none of them violate the company's copyright interests, deleting them silently if they do, and due to the aforementioned smartframe architecture, very rarely deleting anything else by accident! Also if we find anything unpatriotic in their personal files, we report them to Homeland Security, which is a good American thing to do and fosters goodwill with the US government and keeps any of the more annoying parts of the government off our backs. Moreover, it does all this while only using about 33% of the user's memory!"

"Also, since it's very important that we keep the data collection network up to keep the smartframe at optimum performance (as it uses timesharing on their systems), we give it a set of 'self-preservation' directives. In a proof-of-concept I worked out, I actually had the program threaten to destroy my credit and imply me in an embezzling ring if I deleted it! Damned smart code!"

At this point, the CTO is just staring, mouth agape. He stutters a bit, and asks, with apprehension, "My god... that's the most... what do you call this program?"

The guy smiles, crosses his arms, and looks pleased with himself. Beaming, he announces,

"Aristocrats 1.0!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.56 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

An example is original research?

Having become familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I see the inclusion of an unsourced example as a breach of the No Original Research policy. Rather than including the example in the article, could we find an external example and either link to it or get permission to include it in the Wikipedia article with a proper citation? —  X  S  G  21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, I agree. Creating this content specifically for Wikipedia is the very definition of OR. We need to use a notable example. If the joke is as old as it is supposed to be, it would be public domain, anyways. If we have to quote it from a more recent, larger work, then it falls under fair use, as we are specifically discussing the content. Permission from the author would just be a courtesy. — trlkly 04:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gershon Legman heard the joke from?

In Michael Close's book That Reminds Me (Finding the funny in a serious world), he claims that Jay Marshall told Gershon Legman the joke. That's why I put the "Fact" tag on that line. Jay Marshall is hardly "a boy from a broken home," he's more like a magician / ventriloquist . This is from page 78 of That Reminds Me.

Anyone own Rationale of a dirty joke? Maybe Legman explains? Any clarification is helpful. Thanks!

--Protocoldroid (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Punchline Delivery

I'm not entirely sure how to modify the page, but shouldn't ("The punch line: The shocked (or intrigued) agent asks what the act is called, and the proud answer (sometimes delivered with a flourish) is "The Aristocrats!" ) be read as something along the lines of "The punch line: The shocked agent then says "What the hell do you call that?!" and the proud answer..." to clear up that the agent originally means to be shocked, not intrigued at all. This is explained clearer in the film article?--81.104.255.197 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)