Talk:Graham Chapman/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

who?

"Chapman's ashes were scattered over the summit of Snowdon, North Wales by Sherlock on June 18, 2005."

who in the name of the killer rabbit is Sherlock?

Sherlock, as it states earlier in the article, was Chapmans lover. David Sherlock to be precise.--Crestville 13:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

5.6.06: In the "Death" section: "Those at his side at the time of his parting were John Cleese, Michael Palin, and John Chapman's wife. It is noted that John Chapman himself walked in only seconds after Graham had died, and Cleese had to be escorted into another room to overcome his grief; he had never seen anyone die before.

1. Who is John Chapman? Given his surname and the context, I assume that he's a close relative, but some explanation should be given at the first reference to him.

2. The structure of "It is noted that John Chapman himself walked in only seconds after Graham had died" suggests some missing, important text, presumably about some underlying relationship dynamics. If this isn't the case, and if the author sees this note, then please revise acoordingly. Thanks.

eulogy

The external link to the eulogy is on limited bandwidth and might be unavailable sometimes (like right now). Anybody know an alternative location?

CornedBee

new eulogy

Found it on youtube

- Miketheshrubber

still not the whole thing, though. it sounds awfully perverse, for some reason, but it would be nice if someone could find the entire service. the one on youtube is half of cleese's eulogy, and then just the group and others singing ALOTBSOL. riana 10:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed the part about Always Look on the Bright Side of Life. It's from Meaning of Life, not Life of Brian.... jim r selleck

No, it isn't. Vitriden 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

new image

cheers, much friendlier than before! :p riana 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

Is there a reason that Cleese leaving is mentioned in the anecdote of the bigoted woman writing in and Idle responding? Is there some implication I'm missing? Alvis 05:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Idle said he "killed" him, and he left the show after that...--165.234.186.241 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've understood that Chapman battled severe alcoholism in the turn of the 70-80's; i.a. Douglas Adams is mentioned, in one of his biographies, to recall that they drank excessively while working with each other. I believe that Chapman succesfully overcame his alcoholism later. Should some of this be included? Naphra 15:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The first line of Personal Life says "Chapman was an alcoholic in the 1970s,"

Ah, so it does. My bad. Naphra

"...and subsequently raised their son, John Tomiczek together." This is not clear - who raised whose son, and where did he get his surname?

Citation Needed

I re-added the bit in Legacy about Grahams ashes being scattered on Snowdon. David Sherlock is my Uncle and told me about it. Other than that I don't know how else to prove it's true! It just is. So if somebody can tell me how better I should write it then please let me know. Thanks.

Fair use rationale for Image:Graham-Chapman-DVD.jpg

Image:Graham-Chapman-DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chapman's ashes revisited

This article conflicts with the David Sherlock article with respect to the fate of Chapman's ashes. Are there any definitive sources for either? --ukexpat 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GCArchives.com website has expired

The website gcarchives.com is now occupied by advertisements for online gambling. My guess is that the web hosting contract with Chapman's estate/agent/other sysadmin expired and someone noticed it or used an automated registrar to buy the domain name. I've deleted the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.18.165 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Graham Chapam Day

I'm assuming this is false? SirMeh 14:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

'The Ministry of Silly Walks'-sketch...

...was written by Michael Palin and Terry Jones, although in the 'Looks like a brown trouser-job'-dvd, Chapman speaks about himself and Cleese coming up with the idea, and then ringing up Palin and Jones to do the actual writing. --84.208.240.143 21:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KingGraham.jpg

Image:KingGraham.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

joakum

The article is a little bit too positive on mr. joakum. I am going to tone it down a little bit. For example, the college tours weren't recorded by him, but by the universities. Also made a few changes to the anecdote on his homosexuality - I listened to an interview and it was slightly different from what was written here previously. -- Spiny Norman, 4-2-2008

Fair use rationale for Image:Chapman3.jpg

Image:Chapman3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of memorial service

The article says that the service (with Cleese's eulogy) was in December 1989, but the linked transcript says January 1990. The video clip begins with a title "December 1989" so I'm dubious about the accuracy of the transcript. I've added a link to an undated transcript at a eulogy website. JamesMLane t c 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Graham Chapman did NOT have a middle name. If you look at the births, deaths and marriages index for England and Wales, January, February and March 1941, his birth name is listed as solely Graham Chapman. Then under the deaths for England and Wales for 1989, he is listed as Graham Chapman again. If Arthur was his middle name, it would have been listed on either entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.18.89 (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming out

Does anyone know exactly when Chapman came out? The article currently says "in the mid-70s" which is probably when Chapman was at his most visible, but not very specific. Was it before or after MPFC ended? Did Cleese or any of the other Pythons know before he came out on the talkshow? It appears he was already an advocate for gay rights before coming out, as I wouldn't call '72 the mid-70s, but I'm not really sure. If anyone knows enough on the matter to make the section more specific, I would appreciate. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

According to David Sherlock, as written in "The Pythons", Graham had his coming-out party "...in the summer of '67."

Added the story about the aborted biopic. Spiny Norman (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)SpinyNorman

merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into Graham Chapman.

Old discussion, the autobiography may become more notable. If there is no development in book's notability, a merge proposal can be reopened. -- DarkCrow^Caw 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested that A Liar's Autobiography be merged here, as it is not notable on its own outside of this article's context. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Support —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:48pm • 10:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Chapman himself is clearly notable and notability of the book is indicated by the plans to turn it into a film. Dricherby (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"..his sexuality a secret until the mid 1970s.."

It doesn't make sense - see this
"Chapman was a vocal spokesman for LGBT rights, and in 1972 he lent his support to the fledgling newspaper Gay News, which publicly acknowledged his financial and editorial support by listing him as one of its "special friends". In 1971, Chapman and Sherlock adopted John Tomiczek as their son. "
So I guess it wasn't much of a secret from 1971. Correct? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

tweaked it to just 1970s. -- Banjeboi 16:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tall? Really?

The piece flatly states, "Chapman was a tall (6'2"/1.88 m), craggy pipe-smoker who enjoyed mountaineering and playing rugby." Frankly, 188cm is not tall standing next to me. In fact, it is rather diminutive. Isn't using such phrasing rather subjective? Wouldn't a real encyclopedia simply state his height and allow the reader to deduce their own opinion about tallness, or shortness? Also..."craggy"? Really? "Craggy" is something to be listed in an "encyclopedia"? Granted, wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia, but still...."craggy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.193.142 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The average height of men in the UK is about 5'10" with, as far as I can see, a standard deviation of about 3". Chapman was four inches taller than the mean, which is 1.3 standard deviations, putting him in the tallest 10% of the population. That's "tall"; if he would be "diminutive" next to you then you are "extremely tall". :-) (Frankly, the 10% figure surprises me as I'm about 5'10" myself and I don't get the impression that one man in ten is four inches taller than me.) Dricherby (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do we mention his height at all? Of what possible encyclopedic interest is it? John Cleese is way taller than Chapman was, but all we say about him is "He was tall as a child and was well over 6 ft when he arrived there". Ask a million people to name a tall Monty Python member and they'll all say John Cleese. Graham Chapman's alleged "tallness" is rubbish, not worthy of a real encyclopedia like Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yellowbeard

There is (as yet) no mention of Yellowbeard in which he played the title character. 77.99.98.37 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines?

I've removed the claim made that he had an unbilled role, as 'Blonde Man', in that film, as it's clearly wrong. Chapman had not made a film at the time Magnificent Men was made, in fact he was still a medical student, post-Cambridge. Whoever thought he was in this film was some over-eager prat getting it wrong, like the rest of the Pythons any screen work of Chapman's was subsequent to The Frost Report, which began in 1966. Dolmance (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Chapman kept his sexuality a secret until 1967, although he did allude to it in some Monty Python sketches."

Given that Python started in 1969, if Chapman was out by 1967 there would be no need to "allude" to his sexuality in Python sketches since it would already be well-known. I strongly suspect that this is the wrong date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.17.125 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that it was 1969, I'd be very surprised if it was "well-known" at all. And less so, given the conservatism of the BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

His official biography (which I mined for the majority of the article improvements) gives the impression he was "out" as soon as possible, and says that Chapman discovering he preferred a gay relationship to be a pivotal moment of his life. By the time Python started, he was not just out of the closet, but had sold the closet on eBay and put a large colonel's outfit in its place. Perhaps Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that Chapman was probably quite comfortable with his sexuality long before Python started. I'm just suggesting that the BBC of 1969 was probably far less so. This was nearly 50 years ago, long before Twitter and other social media. But by all means we should reflect the sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Death

@64.228.159.13: can you explain why "two months after his death" is better than "3 December"? Two months after his death is the next day, the 4th, so that's factually wrong. I hate to be the nitpicker of details, but if I don't do it, the regulars at WP:ERRORS might. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As there has been no response, I'll revert to what was there previously. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source available for the statement "Chapman suspected it had developed due to his years of pipe-smoking, which he had recently stopped."? The cited source at the end of the following sentence supports the tonsillectomy operation, but doesn't, as far as I can determine, mention Chapman labeling his former pipe smoking as the cause. Pipe smokers do not typically draw the smoke into the throat or lungs, so it seems odd for Chapman to have made that association of cause and effect. If there is no source, it does not seem that the body of the paragraph would be harmed by deleting a non-sourced paraphrased quote.Woodrobin (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's in McCabe's biography on p.245, but I can't find my copy (sorry, I'm terrible at leaving books lying around the house with no idea where they've gone). Since it's not particularly important, I've removed it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lungs and throat yes, but pharynx no. So it’s not odd at all, see e.g. [1] “Head and neck cancer (comprising oral cavity, pharynx and larynx) risk is 3.5 times higher in cigar-only smokers compared with never-smokers, a pooled analysis showed.” (Wyss A, Hashibe M, Chuang SC, et al. Cigarette, Cigar, and Pipe Smoking and the Risk of Head and Neck Cancers: Pooled Analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium(link is external). Am J Epidemiol 2013;178(5):679-90. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally for biographies, unless the death is their main claim to notability (eg: Ben Hardwick, sorry, first example I could think of) or otherwise attracting attention specifically for that (eg: Freddie Mercury), I don't think detail is too vitally important. In Chapman's case, sources generally go as far as saying he died of cancer (not alcoholism, not AIDS, both those are utter rubbish you will never find in reliable sources ever) and leave it at that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Usage of "Queers in History" (Stern, 2009)

The third paragraph under "Personal Life" concerning an audience member writing in cites the Stern and his book "Queers in History" for its information. However, said book seems to refer to Wikipedia. If that is the case, I think another source of information should be found. Otherwise, this seems suspiciously like citogenesis. Looking at the page history, this information was in the article in 2008, before Stern's book was published. Trekky0623 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I recall reading the quotation elsewhere years before Wikipedia existed. I've dropped in a more authoritative source from 2007. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"missing cues" / "causing him to miss cues"

I agree the phrasing is inelegant; but it is correct.

"By the time Monty Python went on tour in 1973, Chapman's drinking had begun to affect performances, missing cues to go on stage."

In this version of the line, "Chapman's drinking" misses cues to go on stage. Succinctness should not trump grammar: we wish to say Chapman's drinking resulting in Chapman missing his cues. If you want, as we all want, a line that is both correct and well-turned, I suggest recasting it.

Regulov (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Done "By the time Monty Python went on tour in 1973, Chapman's drinking had begun to affect his performance, including his missing cues to go on stage." DonIago (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories

What's the reason for removing these categories? If you don't use edit summaries, I've got no idea what you're doing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new at editing, clearly. About the categories, how is someone part of a movement that only started after they've died? Being gay does not make you part of a movement, being gay is not an ideology. BlackZiggurat (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlackZiggurat: I think the idea behind the categories is that although the term "LGBT" didn't exist as such back then, people looking for a list of LGBT comedians (perhaps to write an essay about them, using Wikipedia as a starting point) may reasonably expect to find Graham Chapman on the list, given how prominent he was for standing up to homosexuality in the sexuality stone age of the 1970s. You're probably better off asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies as more people are looking there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, people wanting to know anything about LGBT may choose whoever they want as an example, still, categorizing someone into a movement they did not even know would exist is overreaching, lets keep Wikipedia classy and not stuff people into things just because it sorta kinda applies. BlackZiggurat (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, pop over to the LGBT project page, people who deal with these matters all the time can answer your queries there. Don't just take the categories back out, as that can be considered edit warring and lead to trouble. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty I'm afraid to set foot on such page, afraid of the response, being bi myself few things are as painful as being shunned by your own, I will not edit it any further but I find it quite distasteful to cram people into categories(even more when literally and on Wikipedia) specially when they are dead and specially when such a move can be so easily politicised. BlackZiggurat (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You will find like-minded people over on that project willing to help. Since Wikipedia attracts liberal, left-leaning sorts of people, it's not surprising that it attracts a pretty sizeable LGBT crowd, and a number of very longstanding administrators such as DeltaQuad have had no problems with their sexuality whatsoever. We have had people screwing around on things like Death of Leelah Alcorn but they get stamped on very quickly and hurled out of the door. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the problem, I'll get stamped as conservative very quickly and hurled out the door, I don't think me being bisexual is going to help, if anything it may be a detriment to myself.BlackZiggurat (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears clear that Chapman was openly gay and openly supported gay rights, though I do not have access to read the cited source at the moment. Is the issue that he might not have supported the other letters in the LGBT+ acronym? Funcrunch (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a hardback copy of the book. Chapman came out pretty much the minute homosexuality was legalised in 1967, was a strong supporter of gay rights, and enjoyed poking fun at those who were uncomfortable about it. The book includes some pretty down to earth quotations like "ooh, you haven't been up some smelly arse have you?" (referring to the preference of some gay couples to mutually masturbate each other instead of anal sex) which I think says it all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not if he would have supported the other letters, he probably would have, the issue is we cant possibly know so lets not pretend we do. BlackZiggurat (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Also the issue is LGBT as a movement did not exist when he was alive and it certainly did not exist in its most resent form and while I'm not arguing we should retroactively change articles because present changes on views or definitions, we can certainly say in this particular case that it does not apply, I think he being on lists and categories for gays should be more than enough. BlackZiggurat (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As a queer trans person who also doesn't fall under the "G" part of the acronym, I hear what you're saying. But why do you say "we can certainly say in this particular case that it does not apply"? Funcrunch (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Because of the chronology. Help me think of an example of someone who was retroactively made part of a movement because of similarities between the movement and his personal ideologies. BlackZiggurat (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's worth making a distinction between the main content of an article and its categories. Anachronism certainly can be a problem sometimes when someone is described in an article's text as x when x didn't exist during their lifetime. Categories are different; they're not there to label the subject but rather to help Wikipedia's readers find relevant articles. In other words, they're more or less a navigation aid and not part of the article proper—not a categorization of the person but of the person's article. Another thing to consider is that categories are hierarchical, and an article should generally be placed in the most precise category. For instance, if Chapman had been placed in Category:LGBT writers, it would have been safe to remove his article because he's also in Category:Gay writers, which is a subset of its parent category, Category:LGBT writers. However, the categories you removed his article from—Category:LGBT writers from England and Category:LGBT rights activists from England and Category:LGBT comedians—don't have subcategories substituting "gay" for "LGBT". Now someone looking for articles on gay writers (or rights activists or comedians) won't find Chapman's article by looking through those category pages. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand, perhaps as you say it's more a matter of it being useful rather than appropriate, however in my opinion as I've said before, the fact that he's still in the gay writer and actors lists is enough, now if we wanted to extrapolate this or compare it to other wiki pages, then it does make sense purely for its usefulness, after all Wikipedia list are fairly common and useful, but yet again I think we should make a distinction between for example, a list of the brightest objects on the sky which is strictly based on facts and is of a pragmatic nature and a list of people who are part of social movement which is subject to interpretation and constant change. BlackZiggurat (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think I see what you're saying. But LGBT(QI+) is more than just a social movement; for better or worse, it's widely applied as an umbrella term toward individuals who can be described by the words represented by its various letters. The evolving alphabet soup comprising the term may change over time, and the Wikipedia categories along with it, but as long as there's a 'G' in there, Graham Chapman's article will fit the bill. It may be that more specific categories (e.g., Category: Gay writers from England) would be helpful, but such specificity can actually make categorization more difficult, especially for deceased subjects who can no longer identify as any of the letters (if they ever did in the first place). For instance, imagine a hypothetical article about someone who indisputably had long-term romantic relationships with other women but was also, at least for a time, married to a man. We can't properly categorize her as lesbian or bi because we don't know which she was, and perhaps it's unimportant, but we know she certainly wasn't straight. LGBT categorization makes sense in that case. In any event, readers searching for gay (or LGBT) comedians, gay (or LGBT) writers from England, or gay (or LGBT) rights activists from England are likely to find the categories you removed helpful. Also, this categorization is consistent with Wikipedia convention and policy. If there's a problem with that, it's best addressed in a more general venue, not with this article as a test case. I'm inclined to restore the categories. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 14:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

....Here comes Bomber now, circling round, looking for an opening. He's edit warred with himself many times in the past, this boy, so he knows practically all the WP:3RR violations by now. And he's going for the double infobox field removal lock. He's got it. Here's the {{fact}} tag squeeze. And the Albanian talk page lock. He's going for the revert. He's got the revert. And now he's working on the AN3 report, this is an old weakness of his. Oh, but he boomeranged himself beautifully there, with the, er, the flying Welshman ....

Chronologies of evolving terminology have all of exactly nothing to do with this matter. If a person is reliably sourceable as having been L, G, B or T, then they belong in the appropriate LGBT categories regardless of whether they lived in the 21st century, the 20th, the 19th or the fourth-BC. We're not after "was LGBT the precise terminology they would personally have used for themselves in their own time" — we're after "were they one of these four things?", and if there's no dispute that he identified as gay then there's no valid basis for disputing the category. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality

21:30 Well, I am a heterosexual as well. I have to point that out. [snip] I don't exactly alternate, but eh, its just a question of what you feel like and who you are with at the time, really, isn't it? I think its about 75%-25%. Favoring male. Usually. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216064804/http://pythonline.com/meet/chapman to http://pythonline.com/meet/chapman

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Melton Mowbray blue plaque

Here is a photo of one of the blue plaques in Melton dedicated to Chapman. Kelly ^hi! 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, User:Kelly. A great image. I've added a couple of sentences about the plaque at the end of the "Legacy" section. I'd suggest that the image could replace the current image of The Angel, Highgate there which is a bit general? Otherwise maybe it could go in the "Early life and education" section? But I'll invite the User:Ritchie333.333 to comment, as he brought the article to GA status. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the image currently used in the article doesn't show the blue plaque: The photo was taken 4 years before the plaque was added.--Renerpho (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess I was supposed to add the plaque. Now, nobody likes a good plaque more than I do .... except my wife ... and some of her friends. Oh yes, and Captain Birdseye. Come to think of it, most people like a good plaque more than I do, but that's beside the point, I've added it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Chapman sexuality

I've been studying Chapman's sexuality, and came across some old interviews with him (for instance, a 1982 interview with David Letterman easily found on youtube that wikipedia's blacklist prevents me from linking here), where he states that he considers himself both homosexual and heterosexual, and that it's roughly a 75-25 percent split of attraction. In some of his other writings, he points out that he nearly married a woman in his twenties and figured out at that time he was gay by tallying people on the street he found attractive, eventually marking down 70 men to 30 women.

With this in mind, does it make more sense to label him as bisexual? It seems apparent he was attracted to women if in a lesser manner, and while he never used the term bisexual that I can find, he did say he was both homo and heterosexual. At the very least, this might be worth noting.

74.96.73.138 (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All the biographies I've seen (principally Bob McCabe's) describe Chapman as homosexual, but more importantly they describe him as having a loving and stable relationship with David Sherlock and John Tomiczek. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that video at YT, posted by "Don Giller" so obviously a copyvio (although it says it's been adjust to be compliant). Chapman appears from about 13:45 where he first discusses his drinking. He discusses his sexuality from about 17:55. Yes, I guess it could be mentioned, as Late Night with David Letterman was so big. But it would need a better source. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)