Talk:There once was a man from Nantucket

2006

Classic. Stoa 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Why is the "clean" version first? I'd never heard or read any of these until reading this page. As I asked when I edited the page, who is kidding whom here? Maw 01:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with putting the clean version first?? Stoa 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumably because some people heard the dirty version first and/or are titillated by it, they feel it is more important (and also assume that anybody who thinks otherwise is prudish, politically correct, or otherwise inferior). I think the current article does a fine job, with historical information that indicates why the clean versions are where they are, yet not trying to ignore the dirty versions. - DavidWBrooks 17:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ê

Putting the clean version first does come across as prudish. Ideally, the article would be structured thus: introduction, dirty version, clean historical versions. I have no problem with clean versions being included, but let's be realistic - people who come to this page aren't looking for the clean version. Maw 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I started this article, and the way it originally read was that this particular clean version was (probably) the single best known Nantucket poem. Dirty Nantucket limericks as a whole are of course better known today, but I had been led to believe that no single example is better known than the clean one about Pa's bucket. It's certainly the one with the longest history in print. I don't care what order they're in, but I really don't think either version is slighted by being dealt with second. --Cúchullain t / c 08:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Prudish"? How about historically accurate? Some people may come to this article to giggle about finding "fuck" in an encyclopedia, only to be enlightened about the way the poem came into being. If the dirty version existed first and a clean version morphed out of it, then I would agree - but it appears to have been the other way around, so putting the dirty one first would seem to be unnecessarily titillating. - DavidWBrooks 14:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say either morphed out of the other. The clean "Pa's bucket" version is the oldest I know of, but it doesn't mean the others evolved out of it. At any rate, both versions seem to generate a similar amount of google hits, so it's probably a moot point.--Cúchullain t / c 20:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the following version of the obscene limerick not better known? There once was a man from Nantucket, whose dick was so long he could suck it. He said with a grin, wiping sperm from his chin, if my ear was a cunt I could fuck it.

This modern day bar joke has been told around the world by several famous comedians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.217.64 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any particular version of that is better known. In my experience the variations are often local and are usually minor, like yours.--Cúchullain t / c 20:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the one I heard too. With the possibility of being yelled at clear to me, I will alter the article to include the version of the poem here on the talk page. Main reason being, I think the few extra words make the poem better. I don't know why, but I think its because it tells more of a story in the same time to read it. So I think it's better. Switching poems... now... Gohst 12:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the new version. More objectively, the rhythm is not as good. You've switched the fourth line to an anapestic foot instead of the anabrach used for the first 3 lines. The fifth line uses anapestic but the delay makes for good timing of the punch line. It may seem silly to analyze this like a classical poem, but remember, this is possibly America's best known poem - a masterpiece of the obscene cannon - the American Gothic of poetry. I'll leave the revision stand pending input from others. Ghosts&empties 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should put the old one back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And some people say we're inferior to Britannica! - DavidWBrooks 02:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Philistines. Gohst 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

No refs and also this isn't much of an article and there is many parts missing like who created it, pouplar culture, etc. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mythopoeic?

There's some contention over the word "mythopoeic". The man qualifies as a mythmaker in some sense, and though the word is obscure, it's certainly still valid. Can anyone think of a more appropriate substitution?--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, nothing is obsure as long as it has an article. "Mythopoeic" is over the top here but accurate. Plus it sounds cool. H Bruthzoo 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, overlinking is recommended against. It would be better if there was a word that didn't require a link (and sound so over-the-top). What I'm asking is can anyone think of word that's less over-the-top and obscure to replace it with? If not, my opinion is to leave it in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We could always just say "mythical" or "fictional." Personally, I thought that the word was relatively self-explanatory, interesting, and professional-sounding enough to offset the presence of autofellatio in the entry. I'd say keep it. 68.102.237.253 (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not the right word. I've removed it, and specific reference to the obscene version in the sentence, which would be best left to later discussion in the relevant section. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"... this rendition from 1924"

Is there a source that places this thing at 1924? I found one that puts it published in the local weekly newspaper in 1903 (see: The Inquirer and Mirror). Wiki Wistah 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It says one of the earliest ... not the earliest - sounds like you've found an earlier one. - DavidWBrooks 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing line of clean versions

What is "And as for the bucket, Nantucket." supposed to mean? —Ben FrantzDale 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nantucket = "Nan took it" ... that is, Nan ran off with the bucket. Quite the knee-slapper, eh? - DavidWBrooks 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

i think the 3 punch lines are rather creative, yes, but are those actually LIMERICKS? a word doesn't rhyme with ITSELF, technically. 209.172.25.144 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course they are Limericks. It's quite common for the rhyme at the end of the final line to be the same word as that at the end of the first line. Most of the limericks by the king of nonsense limericks, Edward Lear, are constructed like that:

http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/MN/mn010.html

74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Pop culture references

I have just returned the "pop culture" section with its half-dozen references, because the article needs something to indicate that this poem is widely known and widely used in movies/TV in a joking way - it's not just some smarmy tidbit known to a few. I agree that the current list is too long and repetitive, and I'm not sure how to do this, but I don't think removing the entire section is the way to go. - DavidWBrooks 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The way to indicate the poem is widespread is not by listing random pop culture items that mention it, especially when they are unreferenced. Written, as it is, in the bullet format with no context, the section is essentially a trivia section listing indiscriminate information. It needs to go, but if you wish to add some sourced material, preferable from a secondary source, it would greatly improve the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since each reference mentions the movie/show where it appears, how is it unsourced? Something like "Woody Allen famously said blah-blah" would be unsourced, but not a scene from a specific movie. I have removed a couple of the references that don't support the intro (which probably needs to be better written), so I think that handles the "indiscriminate" part. - DavidWBrooks 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Obscene version

Anyone know what year the the obscene version come into existence? --Somedude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.81.0 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe the obscene version was written by Norman Douglas and published in 1929. It is included in his collection, 'Some Limericks', available as a free e-book here: http://www.cypherpress.com/books/somelimericks/somelimericks.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.240.21 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

As it currently stands, the article has an editors note (not visible to readers, but visible when you edit) saying that we don't need any more examples of the poem being mentioned in film, book, song or story. This is an attempt to keep it from turning into a list (as it once was - see the above discussion from last year). If enough editors disagree it can be changed, but there's one anon. who keeps trying to put in a reference to some signer and it keeps getting removed, to his/her frustration, so I thought I'd mention it here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture Reference

There is a useful reference in Star Trek TNG "The Naked Now" where commander data (an andriod) explains that he cannot comprehend a limrick he overheard and begins to repeat it as "There was one a young woman from Venus, who's forehead was shaped like a ....." where at this point the captain cuts him off. This example shows that the format of the limrick so recognizable even with the location and character change and only the use of the opening line. The fact that it is cut off actually makes it funny. The fact that it is NOT the Nantucket limrick but is instead a nod to it that makes this one worthy of inclusion in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a reference to a different limerick (I believe the rest details two homosexual gentlemen who notice her and worry that "she'll come in between us."). That one isn't as well-known, but it existed prior to the Star Trek episode. This article refers strictly to limericks with an opening line from Nantucket (or else it would be "there once was a man from...").

• points to limerickdb.com* Enrich your understanding of the medium. 68.102.237.253 (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What is it about The Simpsons?

Is there some secret cabal whose goal is to insert a Simpsons reference into every single wikipedia article? (One was just removed from here, for at least the third time) I bet I've seen Simpsons trivia inserted, usually needlessly, into at least 50 different articles over the past year. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years. It has referenced almost everything there is. Indeed, it's harder to find topics that the Simpsons has NOT referenced than to find those it has. Don't have a cow, man...couldn't resist. 68.102.237.253 (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The archivist's job is to record, not to reason why. To do otherwise is a minor form of revisionism. It is referenced in The Simpsons so it belongs here. 86.171.213.171 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. Every wikipedia article doesn't list every time the article's concept is referenced anywhere; that would result in a massive mush. We pick and choose - and debate, of course - what is relevant, important, significant. We don't just dump in every reference we can think of. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Obscene version

Do we really need to have the whole obscene version on this artical? Is it really required? 142.161.183.193 (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)some.canadian.ip.address

If you look at the top of the this page, you'll see there are folks who think/thought that the obscene version should come first! The argument is that without the obscene version, the clean version would certainly have been forgotten long ago, probably not even worthy of an article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of personal opinion, though, I don't think this limerick should even be worthy of an article. It just doesn't reflect nicely on an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. I mean, sure, Wikipedia is uncensored, but there's still a fine line on what to put or not put as an article. Deagle_AP (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The argument is, the limerick series itself is notable; the poems themselves just happen to be short enough that we can include them in full, whereas in a longer poem or song we'd just include parts of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This poem is not necessary to promote the coherence of the article. I don't think half of the people learning about limericks from this page have ever considered rhyming Nantucket with suck it and it is not really necessary to introduce to so many people. A less obscene version of the obscene version could be included instead if educating the masses on obscene poetry is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.226.188 (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As the obscene examples included were unreferenced, I have removed them until a sourced obscene example can be included. Anyone can make up a rude limerick which rhymes with Nantucket, so we need a proper literary example. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia not supposed to contain obscenity unless it's really important? And the importance of the entire obscene version here seems to be questionable.Crmonty (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to add my comment that there is no need to have some of the words in the obscene version printed on the page. I love free speech, but I don't see any value in having the c-word or the f-word unless it is critical to the article. As an encyclopedia, we must maintain some level of scholarly/professional presentation. Couldn't we just put EXPLETIVE or something there instead? Greenshinobi (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reason this silly little poem is worthy of a wikipedia article is the existence of the obscene versions: that's what everybody knows, not the original (I didn't know the clean versions existed until I found this article). And the only reason this silly poem generates obscene versions is that Nan-tuck-et provides rhymes for XXX-fuck-it - not with other obscenities. (You'll notice there's no article about "There once was a man from Martha's Vineyard.")

Leaving out the entire basis for the article, or hinting at it with easy-to-misinterpret stand-ins, would be kind of silly, wouldn't it?

If the obscenities were in the first paragraph, or anywhere in the introduction, then there might be an argument that they're excessive, - but they're not even on the first screen; you have to scroll down to see them. The introduction warns that obscene versions exist - it's not like they're sprung on the reader. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The obscene version should be the first version as its the poem everyone knows. Anyone coming to this article obviously wants the real limerick rather than some sanitized version that no one has heard before, I understand having historical versions but this is pretty ridiculous. Do I have to live in a world build for 3rd graders for the rest of my life? Wiki editors, protecting you fervently from information that every 10 year old boy knows. Revswim (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Examples in popular culture

Occasionally, anonymous editors want to add more examples of the poem being used in pop culture - usually The Simpsons or an obscure rapper. I have removed them, to live up to a past consensus that the list of examples was turning into a boring trivia and should be truncated. But perhaps that consensus is out-dated, and the pop-culture listing should be revampled. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture trivia is just that - trivia. We don't need a listing of ever time the poem shows up in pop culture with no context as to why it would be important.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that within reason, pop culture references have the ability to enhance, rather than detract from, a contexual understanding of certain entries, such as this poem. That is why I continue to include the "John Valby" reference notwithstanding repetitive deletions by you and/or others.

Pop-culture references can certainly be valuable to establish context and indicate the importance of an article's subject. They're not automatically trivia that should be deleted, but also not automatically important enough to be included, either. In this case, an unlinked, unreferenced item about one of many, many artists who have mentioned this poem doesn't fit the bill. If Obama had used it in a speech, that would be different ... - DavidWBrooks 17:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nuke the trivia, and nuke anything which does not have a source attesting to its significance. See WP:V (core policy), WP:RS, WP:ATT and so on. If we're going to have obscene limericks then we should be absolutely sure not to raise hostages to fortune, the best way to do that is to follow policy. It really can't be that hard to reference this stuff, surely? Especially given how very determined people are to include it. I have veryt little patience with people whose determination to include something stops just short of finding a source, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"not to raise hostages to fortune"? I didn't follow that comment ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add a mention of a ribald version being spoken in its entirety save the final obscenity in a St. Elsewhere episode, but then I encountered the note to not add to the paragraph. Which begs the question, why do the existing ones remain (for at least over 2 years), but not others? If the list is kept abbreviated, why not make it the best examples and not just a random few? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.191 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture again

After a two-year pause from the above comments, the subject of the "pop culture" section returns. It was recently removed in toto, with the usual vague comment that it's "just trivia", and I have returned it in tightened form, with the usual response that a reflection of an article's mention in popular culture can be an excellent reflection of its importance and relevance. As it is, here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Will And Grace S08E03

Will And Grace Season 08 Episode 03 has this poem reference too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.135.94 (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Simpsons examples

A second example from the Simpsons cartoon show was added to the article and I removed it. The editor wondered why.

The article notes that the Simpsons has made several references to this poem and gives one example as a reference; giving more examples seems pointless - it doesn't tell the reader anything new. This is a problem with many "references in popular culture" sections, which are valid because they can demonstrate the extent that the article's topic permeates the real world, but which can easily degenerate into fancruft-y listicles.

The question of how many examples is too many is, of course, subjective. But I think it's pretty reasonable that more than one example from any given source is unnecessary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that reasoning. I, however, submit that my example was better (i.e. more notable in the episode context), and would like your opinion on replacing the current Simpsons example. Further, I added some line breaks for clarity; the current paragraph is too long and should be broken up for clarity. Alternatively, we could go with a straight list; rather than listing out episodes or summaries, we could just have single line that reads "The Simpsons", with or without episode titles (rather than a summary of the context).

Best,

Kassorlae 00:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kassorlae (talk • contribs)

If you think your example is better, go ahead and swap it. And I don't think the paragraph is too long, personally, but that's a judgement call.

I would strongly advise against creating a list as compared to a paragraph, because that REALLY attracts fly-by editors saying "I remember seeing it once in this cartoon or that movie or that TV show" and adding example after example. We're not trying to be exhaustive - with this poem, you can't be - but to give readers a quick sense of its widespread use in popular culture. If you really want to, you can create List of uses of Man from Nantucket in popular culture (or some such title) as a separate article, but that doesn't seem terribly useful to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

By list, I meant:

"It was referenced on the Simpsons, for example, in epname and epname."

and leave it at that, rather than going into the episode summary and context. That would also excise extraneous details from this page, and allow them to be included on the ep pages. Those could link here, but no new episode entries would be added (it would be an illustrating example, without being an illuminating episode summary *here*. People could add the link to this page in the episode summary without making further entries on this page.

What do you think about that? Kassorlae 17:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me as unnecessary but again, that's a judgement call. Is there any way to reference its inclusion in a particular episode, aside from somebody saw it there? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Popular culture needs to be cut back

As we discussed four years ago (see above), the Popular Culture section is again growing pointlessly. To quote myself: This is a problem with many "references in popular culture" sections, which are valid because they can demonstrate how the article's topic permeates the real world, but can easily degenerate into fancruft-y listicles.

I think we've gotten to the point that any "so-and-so in this TV/movie/comic said the first line before being cut off" item should be removed unless it has a source reference.

What say others? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Popular culture again

After years of complaining (see above) I have slashed the "popular culture" item, turning it into two paragrphs with a couple of examples instead of a long, repetitive list. Here are the items I removed:

• In Woody Allen's 1966 film What's Up, Tiger Lily?, the protagonist Phil Moskowitz reads the opening line of "ancient erotic poetry": "There once was a man from Nantucket".
• Garrison Keillor quoted the first line to laughter during his last episode of 42 years of hosting the radio show A Prairie Home Companion.
• In the Hey Arnold! episode "New Teacher", Harold Berman volunteers to recite a poem for his schoolmates. He begins to say, "There once was a man from Nantucket" before being shushed by Mr. Simmons. Nickelodeon repeated this joke fourteen years later in the SpongeBob SquarePants episode "Squidward's School for Grown-Ups", SpongeBob, impersonating an opera singer, begins his act by producing a sheet of paper and reading the same line. The audience is aghast as he realizes he has the wrong sheet.
• In That '70s Show season 2 episode 24, Hyde begins a joke with "There once was a girl from Nantucket..."
• In The Bad News Bears season 2 episode 12, "The Good Life", Tanner enters a poetry contest with "There once was a man from Nantucket..." before the principal cuts him off.
• In Suits season 3 episode 9, Rachel (Meghan Markle) starts to recite: "There was once a girl from Nantucket..."
• In Did You Hear About the Morgans?, Hugh Grant jokes about his vows by saying "There once was a girl from Nantucket..."
• In the pilot of Babylon 5, Commander Sinclair tells Delenn, an alien, about poetry. Delenn responds with "There once was a man from Nantucket..."
• In Gravity Falls, season 1 episode 3, Mabel asks Shakespeare if he knows any limericks. He responds with "There once was a dude from Kentucky...", a play on "There once was a man from Nantucket..."

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately you left that section a complete mess. Try reading it.

References