Talk:Stephen Fry/Archive 1

His Severely Bent Nose

I've always wondered why Stephen Fry's nose is so horribly bent. Does anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.158.70.67 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

In Moab (his autobiography), he said he broke it when he was young and never got it fixed. I have the audio version, so I can't tell you which page to look at, but it's there. Puccini999 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

At her Majesty's pleasure?

Did he spend time in prison? Three months for credit card fraud I think.

Yes, perfectly true. 88.104.15.252 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, violates our BLP policy, was unsourced etc. We do not need this WP:BLP dodgy claim. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant at all. Fry himself writes about it in his autobiography. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an online source. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No online source is required. The reference provided by JediLofty meets the requirements. Do you doubt JL's reading of the book or Fry's writing about his experience? Perhaps you can read a copy at your library as it is there in black and white (unless it is an older copy then the pages might have faded to yellow a bit.) MarnetteD | Talk 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

At my library? Lol, the nearest decent is a long way away (100s of miles at least) and not in English either. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't harm anything to add a page number, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one page devoted to the narrative.--Polymath618 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the page range is mentioned. The pages 305-335 are part of the ref. Please correct me and the reference if I am wrong JediLofty. MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fry speaks of this quite openly. It should be trivial to find several references to it. Also, plainly a book is a perfectly good source -- if anything books are more traditionally respectable than online sources. — Dan | talk 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone cares to have a look, Fry refers to his prison experience in a talk with Mark Lawson, available on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJgxUzJh-SA , might be a clip back) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.124.209 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the sentence: "At seventeen, after leaving Norfolk College of Arts and Technology, Fry absconded with a credit card stolen from a family friend, and as a result spent three months in Pucklechurch Prison for fraud." It just sounds like he intended to stay there, in the prison. "I hear the other classes purchase accommodations with these 'credit' cards. What can I get with this one?" "Three months in Pucklechurch." "Sounds lovely--Yes, let's book it starting to-day...."O0drogue0o (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

trivia-C. B. Fry

We need a reliable source for this claim that Stephen Fry is related to C.B.Fry. Any suggestions of a link have been removed from the C.B.Fry article due to the fact that no one had been able to produce any proof other than Stephen Fry claimning so (perhaps in an attempt to purposely misinform) during an episode of QI. I think therefore that this claim should be removed, unless someone can cite a more reliable source.

Clarification

Bold text==National Treasure?!?== Is Wikipedia supposed to be a fan site or an encyclopedia?

Well, that statement details his public image, it's not a direct comment. And yes, that is within wikipedia's remit: to accurately (and with sources) reflect opinion on a subject, as wll as giving the facts. Perhaps we should source that particular bit. Amo 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Stars' Tennis Balls

Why is it "probably a coincidence" that they are all anagrams or puns of their Monte Cristo counterparts? It seems very likely to me, given Stephen Fry's kind of humour. — OwenBlacker 21:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the comment — OwenBlacker 21:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Categories

This article needn't be in both Category:British actors and Category:English actors, nor in both Category:British comedians and Category:English comedians. Tim Ivorson 5 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

Why not? He is both English and British. Isn't it correct and thorough to include the article in all four categories? (I didn't categorize the article, and I see that someone has since removed the alternates.) Canonblack 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the reasoning is that since all English actors are also British actors (and Category:English actors is a subcategory of Category:British actors, it's redundant to use both. The same goes for British/English comedians. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Stage fright

The mention of 'stage fright' is a little too euphemistic for my liking. He was mentally unwell and has acknowledged this. - written by richardcavell in August 2005.

Sign your posts. If you have details on this, especially if you have references (not that I'm doubting you, but something like that should be backed up with references), please change the wording. Canonblack 20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote my comment I did not know how to sign posts; thanks for inviting me to. Stephen Fry spoke about it on an episode of Parkinson, but I can't get the ITV website to give me the transcript because it was too long ago. - Richardcavell 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia; the book about his mannerisms

In the trivia section, on the book Tish and Pish - how to be of a speakingness like Stephen Fry (ISBN 1840244666), the article states: "However, this... does not accurately reflect his mannerisms, and contains various grammatical errors (most notably in the title)." - Surely this is POV, and need not be included, has anyone noteworthy said this? And surely the fact that it is not grammatically correct is the whole point. I haven't personally read the book so I wouldn't know, but this just seemed to jump out at me. M A Mason 20:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I cut the ref to the reader of Harry Potter in the US, as entirely irrelevant to Stephen Fry article, but I can't work out where to add this info in the mass of HP pages. So here it is for anyone who cares enough to find a home for it: "(this is Jim Dale's job in the US)"

-- I don't understand why quite a large part of his work is "entirely irrelevant" to this article? -- Chris G

I think that what the editor above was saying is that it's not relevant to an article on Stephen Fry that the US editions of the Harry Potter audiobooks are narrated by Jim Dale. Obviously, the fact that Fry narrates the British versions is relevant, and it is mentioned accordingly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NORCAT

NORCAT is Norfolk College of Art and Technology, in King's Lynn. Stephen took his A levels there after expulsion from school and had his first (only?) hetrosexual experience with a fellow student. Is discussed in "Moab" but I don't have a copy to hand for reference.Epeeist smudge

I myself am somewhat sketchy about referring to Moab as a source for events in Fry's life. I think that, like the Bible, it conveys a story of salvation without historiography as its chief concern. Carolynparrishfan 20:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your point there justifies discrediting his autobiography.

Although I can maybe believe he might have embellished the sexual experience for comic effect (the description of the perfect suitablity of the vagina for sexual purposes was beautiful), I struggle to believe that he would make up going to NORCAT, even with his understated yet hyperbolic style. As the previous (anon) contributer says, I don't think we sure ignore his autobiography here. Epeeist smudge 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

University Challenge

Stephen also appeared on an anniversary edition which featured the then-current champions against a team of famous UC-alumni. Charles Moore is the only other competitor I can remember. Stephen completely dominated the show, winning it for the old-boys nearly single-handed.

Daniel Cohen

I've taken out the link to the Daniel Cohen, because I felt it was causing more then a little confusion, what with the Cohen linked being a totally different one to the one being referred too. Voici 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vehicle

He drives a former London Taxi (Black cab) when driving in London due to ease of manoeuvre. This was documented 25 January 2006 on his segment on the BBC 2 genealogy series "Who Do You Think You Are?". [4] Also in an earlier column in his Paperweight, describing a natural and possibly fictional misunderstanding with a member of the public.

I'm pretty sure he no longer drives a black cab- if I find a source and remember to return, I'll alter this. EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL} 23:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As referenced in the webchat here (14 June 2006): [2]

Q: Who is the most interesting person you ever had in your Taxi?

A: . . . I take my friends if necessary.

Present tense, I mean.

Minervamoon 08:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive

I couldn't help noticing that most of the sufferers with bi-polar disorder that Stephen Fry spoke to (or about, with regard to the Swartz's daughter) on his programme (and of course Stephen himself) had Jewish ancestry. Is bi-polar disorder more prevalent (or more diaganosed) among Jews or was this just a coincidence? Jooler 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In his interview with Pamela Stephenson he seemed to confess that he was only pretending to have the disorder, a supposed instance of his willingness to 'accommodate'. This is worth including, I think.

Fry's Mother

Marianne Neumann, an Austrian of Jewish descent.

Didn't his recent appearance on the BBC's genealogy show Who Do You Think You Are? establish that his mother's family were actually from Slovakia? Indisciplined 21:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he said this as well in a talk at the Hay Festival 2005. --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Atheism

I removed references to Fry's supposed Atheism. He may well be an Atheist, but I cannot find any reference to suggest that he is. Not conforming to organised religion does not necessarily mean that one disbelieves in the existance of a god. 219.90.233.149 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

he does make frequent implicit reference to his atheism in QI. reinstate144.82.194.68 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that he is quoted as saying 'religion. shit it!' on the wikiquotes page kind of implies his atheism. Or at least agnosticism.

I remember him saying that yeah, but it could refer to atheism, agnosticism, or indeed theism with a disagreement with organized religion. I would keep it out until we see a source with him categorically stating that he does not believe God exists. M A Mason 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to point out that he's an atheist, any more than we need to point out that he can walk using his legs. He's British and not gormless, of course he's atheist. - 88.109.64.43 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He said that he is an atheist on tonight's episode of Room 101. I'll see if they have transcripts or something.--Tyrfing 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, he said something along the lines of `I'm not a (particularly?) religious man myself but...' which could cover the range from tolerant atheism to agnosticism (which is more classically British than determined atheism). 84.92.241.186 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no difference between agnosticism and mainstream atheism. Most atheists live their lives on the assumption that the supernatural does not exist. Just as we are agnostic about fairies and unicorns, we also have to be agnostic about god. But since the existence of a god is very unlikely and yet to have any evidence, we live our lives on the assumption that they do not exist and thus call ourselves atheists. Stephen Fry is an atheist, but whether or not it is notable for this article is to be debated. 88.109.31.235 (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The following are what Fry said in a conversation with Hitchens for The Blasphemy Debate at the Hay Festival 2005.

"Yes, there may be a creator. I don't think it at all likely. [...] I've always believed that everything that is said from authority is either the authority of one's own heart, one's own brain, one's own reading, one's own trust, but not the authority of someone who claims it because they're speaking for God and they know the truth because it's written in a book. That, essentially, is where I come from. In a sense, tolerance is my religion. Reason is my religion."

Stop trying to package as though Fry is not an atheist. He clearly is. Stampit (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Fry mentions his atheism (along with 'gay, Jewish') in his latest 'Podgram' (His official podcast available on his personal website, and iTunes). Episode 4. I can provide a link to it, if it is needed - the page is quite straightforward to find. RWDY (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In Fry's latest work "Stephen Fry in America", he claims himself to be an atheist (p. 86) and to harbor anti-religious feelings (p. 145) Surely this should be worked in-no?69.137.144.26 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you need a ref for his atheism try this, from his own blog. "I do not find Mormonism especially ridiculous [...] because I find all pretend invisible friends, Special Books and their rules equally ridiculous. Mormon ideas about realms of crystal rebirthing and special underpants are no weirder than the enforcing of wigs and woollen tights on orthodox Jewish women or laws and dogmas about burkhas and Virgin Births. The religion of the Latter Day Saints is not deserving of especial contempt simply because it is newer. It is as barmy as the rest and I cheerfully treat it as such." Seems fairly unambiguous to me. MFlet1 (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to find religion barmy and ridiculous without being an atheist. If his new book actually has him self-identifying using the exact word "atheist", though, that seems fine. --McGeddon (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pretend invisible friend"? I think he's talking about God. MFlet1 (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he only says that he finds it "ridiculous". It takes a leap of WP:OR to say that he's definitely an atheist (rather than an agnostic, or a believer with doubts), from this. --McGeddon (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The exact quote from page 86 is: "Only sneering liberal atheist scrum like me would raise an eyebrow at this outward and visible form of an inward and spiritual creed" (Fry, S. "Stephen Fry in America". Hammersmith, UK, HarperCollins 2008).

And from page 145.

"The atheist anti-religionist in me bridles, but results are results"(ibid).

That's about as clear an admission as one could fine-no?69.137.144.26 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not great - the first is self-mocking, and the second could be read as only describing part of his worldview. I don't think either specifically rules out agnosticism, or conflicted belief. We should be careful about synthesising the fact of "definitely 100% atheist" purely from a weight of ambiguous sources. There's surely an interview out there where he simply states it directly and unjokingly. --McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the strident denial of two direct quotes, penned by the man under his own name? The strongest evidence this page has is the evidence that has come directly from its subject167.102.242.130 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We can quote them for what they are, which is fine, but we can't quote them for what we think they imply about his beliefs, because we might be wrong about that. We should be very careful when writing about living people; see WP:BLP.

We can say that "Fry finds the rules of religion 'ridiculous'", or even that "Fry has described the 'atheist anti-religionist in [him]' as bridling at whatever" but it's extremely presumptuous for us to say "Stephen Fry is an atheist" based solely on these sources, which could just as easily fit an agnostic or a doubting, self-deprecating believer.

Given that this talk section goes back a year and a half, it's beginning to look as if he intentionally avoids committing to anything in public interviews, on this subject. Maybe we could write about that in itself, if there's anything to say about it, but we just can't make the leap to "Stephen Fry is an atheist" if he's intentionally avoided saying it. --McGeddon (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, and respect for the standards of wikipedia, but given the mounting evidence, and the fact that Richard Dawkins (a friend of Fry's) has claimed that Fry bought several of his "Out Campaign" (Atheist Pride movement) T-Shirts "He has also, by the way, been a stalwart enthusiast of our Out Campaign and has ordered several Scarlet A t-shirts". (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=401112) it seems fairly obvious which way the evidence is trending.167.102.242.130 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! It's just not our job to make the definite final call on a personal viewpoint that has "mounting evidence" and that "seems fairly obvious". I'm sure there'll be a suitably unambiguous one-line quote from him at some point, if it's not out there already. --McGeddon (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can at least now be in agreement that Fry is anti religion. From page 226 of his new book: "As one who abominates religion and most religious organisations..."69.137.144.26 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Atheist" is not a well-defined category, and we are not in the business of defining it, nor of figuring out what labels to stick on Mr. Fry. Our job is only to aggregate things said by other people, especially when it comes to such a totally subjective term as 'atheist'. Does an atheist specifically deny the existence of any gods? Does he make no truth-claims about the existence of gods, yet without asserting agnostically that no truth-claims could be made about the existence of gods? Or does he just reject some particular brand of theism? There are all sorts of epistemological and theological issues to be waded through in these matters, as our own article on atheism reflects. We would be perfectly justified in repeating, and citing, (1) things Mr. Fry himself has said on the topic of religion, and his own attitude toward it; or, failing that, (2) things our reliable sources say about his attitude toward religion, again with citations. It should never appear that "Wikipedia itself" is claiming that Mr. Fry is an atheist, or an agnostic, or any such contentious thing -- that's simply not our place. — Dan | talk 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He has self-identified, both as an atheist and an anti-religionist in his own work; has broadly agreed with the work of atheist champion Christopher Hitchens (at the Hay in 05), and is openly supporting Richard Dawkins atheist pride movement. But if that is not proof enough, then I respect that.

I wasn't suggesting that we as authors have any authority-merely pointing out Fry's own admissions.69.137.144.26 (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

From Series 2 episode 2 of nevermind the buzzcocks

Simon Amstell : Stephen, while your here, is there a god?

Stephen fry : No. No darling, no.

I think that's fairly conclusive. Can we move on.Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stephen+fry+atheist Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to take a few more minutes and actually pull out one single quote from there that self-identifies Fry as an atheist (rather than being someone who finds the subject interesting, has conflicted feelings about it, or has talked to Hitchens about blasphemy), please do. The best I can see in those results is the "influences" page of his website, which describes him as having "atheist beginnings", followed by a period of "theological leanings" in his teens, whose "shadow remains". We can summarise that in the article, but it's still not enough to claim "Mr Stephen Fry is an atheist". --McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinings

How can you source the fact that he does Twinings adverts (btw not just voiceovers, he appears physically in them and addresses the viewer)? He definitely does it though, I've seen the adverts...

Check the link: http://www.twinings.co.uk/everyday_tv_advert_intro.asp Arthur Holland 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Prince Charles

A previous version of this page mentioned Fry's sympathy for the Labour Party. The next sentence said, "He is on friendly terms with Prince Charles, however..." Since the monarchy is apolitical (and New Labour has not indicated a wish to abolish the monarchy) I feel that the "however" seems out of place. I have restructured the sentence too - I hope people feel this works better. "He is also on friendly terms with Prince Charles..."

Also - how can we go about sourcing the fact that Fry does lots of work for the Prince's Trust?

--Philipdw 23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Robbie Williams Bipolar?

The article says that in "Stephen Fry: The Secret Life of the Manic-Depressive", Fry

interviews celebrities (such as Robbie Williams, Rick Stein, Carrie Fisher, Richard Dreyfuss, and Tony Slattery) and non-famous persons, all of whom also suffer from the illness.

I'm pretty sure that the programme said that Robbie Williams suffered from depression, not bipolar disorder. Fry interviews Williams because of the apparent 'mania' that Williams displays in public, but this is attributed to his stage persona rather than a symptom of bipolarity. --Stratocastermagic 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is a little confusing as written. Fry's bipolar struggle has gotten mixed in with the documentary which is about Manic Depression of which bipolarism is one example (at least that is my best guess). You, or someone who has seen the documentary in question, may want to try to make the paragraph a little clearer. MarnetteD | Talk 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder is manic depression, as should be clear from the name. No subsets; they are equal. The documentary focuses upon Stephen Fry's struggle with the illness, but he also goes around Britain and America interviewing fellow celebrity and non-famous sufferers alike. I'm not quite sure what to make of Robbie Williams, though. The documentary did try to question whether Williams' mania was simply a persona and not a symptom of bipolarism, but there are other sources which state that Williams is indeed manic depressive.

Minervamoon 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The programme seemed to be pretty clear in saying that Robbie Williams wasn't manic depressive. Also Rick Stein is not manic-depressive. He was interviewed because his father WAS manic depressive and committed sucide by throwing himself of of a cliff near the family home in Padstow. Jooler 03:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited to reflect the valid comment immediately above.89.242.56.136 23:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clinical Depression & Cyclothymia

Just a note about the "Cyclothymia" on the front page. I am a psychotherapist and Fry's diagnosis could be Bipolar I or II Disorder, not Cyclothymia if he ever had "Severe Depression" as the article states. It would be considered Bpolar II if he had Hypomanic episodes, that is the associated traits of Mania, but still managed to function in daily living. He would have Bipolar I if he ever had an episode of Mania, regardless of any state of depression. This diagnosis is based on the DSM-IV-TR (2000), a lot of people don't like the book, but this is what it says, take or leave it. I hope this was helpful.

There is nothing in the reference about Stephen Fry suffering from clinical depression, only from cyclothymia. I'll remove the "clinical depression" part, then the "cyclothymia" will make sense. PsychoPiglet (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

His nationality

It's either British (legal, civic national) or Jewish/English (ethnic national). But certainly not simply English. I amended this line last week, and have had to do so again. (I think British is best, but stick with the ethnic national theme that my betters insist on - only correct it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.159.12 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Why "certainly not simply English"? [3] a reliable source that in no uncertain terms describe Fry as English. Can you quote any source to suggest he isn't? You seem to be on a crusade to rid Wikipedia of all mentions of Englishness in English citizens who happen to have a Jewish ancestry. This is disrupting Wikipedia to push a point of view. Please stop Gwernol 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol, you are incorrect. There is no such thing as an English citizen. The previous poster is simply pointing out inaccuracy rather than POV. Stephen Fry's nationality is British. He is a citizen of the UK. For accuracy he should be described as such. I have made the necessary changes. (Ajkgordon 07:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Gwernol. Personally i think it's good to be as specific as possible. We know he was born in England, we know he has been referred to in the media as "English", i'm sure you could find a number of sources where he self identifies as "English".Amo 03:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree — Fry clearly identifies himself as "English". If he also identifies himself as Jewish, the article can reflect that, but not everyone who has Jewish ancestry so identifies. I don't believe that he's a practicing Jew, and to say that he's "Jewish/English" could be read as an indication of his religion as well as his ancestry. The article accounts for his mother's Jewish ancestry, but it really doesn't seem like it's a big part of Fry's identity. Given that, I think it would give undue weight to indicate it in the intro. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Who Do You Think You Are?" documentary he made for the BBC established that both his maternal and paternal ancestry is Jewish. He was born to British-born parents in Britain, hence his nationality is British. Indisciplined 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No it didn't- his mother's paternal and maternal lines were both Jewish, not his paternal and maternal lines. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

His nationality is British. It's that simple. There is no such thing as English nationality. English/British may be the best compromise.

"There is no such thing as English nationality"? That's rather an odd and controversial assertion. --Orange Mike 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On UK government forms English is one of the choices of nationality, as well as Scottish and Welsh. Jewish isn't a nationality, however.

There is no such thing as an English or Scottish passport. He will hold a British Passport. People in britain talk freely, however, of being English/Scottish/Welsh, without actually meaning nationality. —Stooshie—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stooshie (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

England is a nation, that is a fact. Arguing about citizenship is pointless because we are not discussing citizenship are we? Jewish can mean ethnically a Jew or by religious conviction, or both of course, there is no Jewish nation other than Israel, and Fry is no Israeli. His nationality can therefore be quite accurately be described as either British or English, but seen as he was born and raised in England to English parents and has lived his entire life in England then it is better to list him as English.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is none of our business whether to call England a nation, or to decide which of citizenship, 'nationality', and 'ethnicity' is the most important category of personhood. What we should be concerned with is describing Mr. Fry in terms accordant with those used by our reputable sources. If he is always called English and never British, then we should describe him as English and cite the sources that support our decision, regardless of what we think about the correctness of the term. If the reverse, then we should call him British. If the sources are split then we should say that. I suspect his Judaism is usually mentioned in addition to his being either British or English, so probably we should throw that in too. Perhaps it would be best to include all three, like this: 'British/English; Jewish'. Thoughts? — Dan | talk 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs a photo?

Why no photo for the brilliant Stephen Fry?

He deserves at least one photo here. 68.53.87.116 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)C Nosangles

I have just added a picture, There used to be a picture here but it was removed due to copyright violation. Dorkules 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a recent screen cap, which should be fair use. Slaapwel 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Who deleted my screen cap? And why? Don't delete without discussing it on this page first or supplying sufficient argumentation. — Slaapwel 19:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Slaapwel, I would love to see a picture there as well, but we can’t use your screen cap. It’s copyrighted and we can only use it when you (or we) provide a detailed fair use rationale to use it on this article. Quite frankly, I don’t think we can provide one that fulfils all 10 points in the policy, especially item 1: “No free equivalent”. Point 8 in examples of unacceptable fair use is probably even more clear: ”An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph”.

So that's why someone removed your screen cap. --Van helsing 21:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed you provided a fair use rationale, thanks. It unfortunately doesn’t solve the “no free equivalent available” issue. The man is luckily still alive, it isn’t a “one-time-in-a-million-years-event” where only one guy took a picture from. --Van helsing 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He is English. Look at wiki pages for famous welsh people ([Tom Jones]) they more often than not they are welsh not British —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.224.143 (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, there's a picture of him in Blackadder on this page now. Wouldnt a picture of the actual Stephen Fry without Second World War uniform and fake moustache be more suitable? I understand it's hard to put on picture but this seems like a really bad alternative. Allthecoolnamesweretaken 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Born to be Wilde?

I altered the (unsourced) comment indicating Fry himself said he was "born to play" the part of Oscar Wilde in the 1997 film. I altered it to say that many commentators at the time used the epithet "born to be Wilde". I did so for several reasons:

• I couldn't find a source for the assertion that Fry said this (I'm not suggesting there isn't one, just that I couldn't find one and none is given in the current article).
• Although it's difficult to source an assertion such as "many commentators said...", a simple Google search indicates beyond reasonable doubt it is true.
• This alteration made clear the allusion to the song that explains why the idea of "born" was used so commonly, perhaps at all.

My change was reverted within a few minutes to the similarly unsubstantiated (but IMO less plausible and less informative) earlier version with a comment that my change wasn't sourced... 82.15.52.66 10:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Fry ... most notably Fry

In the paragraph under Career on Vivian Stanshall, it says:

Since Fry, many other English comedians, also Stanshall fans, have tried their hand at "Being Vivian," most notably Fry and Ade Edmonson.

That "most notable Fry" is surely an error, but I'm not sure if it was supposed to be some other name there instead. Hv 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyclothymia

Why has someone added that Fry is cyclothymic? He has suffered both major depressive episodes and full manic episodes. He clearly meets the criteria for Bipolar 1 disorder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.99.139.62 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I'd like to know that as well. I know that article quotes him as saying "cyclothymia", but I really can't believe that's true. His major upswings have led him to prison and his major downswings have driven him to suicide attempts. My mother, a psychiatrist, cannot believe that this can be categorized as "bipolar light". He has to have Bipolar I. Minervamoon 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is click on the link provided to see his direct quote. Many people may have many opinions about this and whether ir is correct or not but wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, isn't in the opinion/belief business and as this is sourced to his own words until he refutes it this edit fulfills the requirments for posting here.MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I did click the link and saw the quote, as I said. But as there are definite professional grounds for dispute, why not just say "as-yet undiagnosed bipolar disorder" without getting too (and possibly-erroneously) precise? Minervamoon 03:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because we have the interview with him stating the facts as he knows them and they would seem to be well diagnosed. You may well have professional grounds to debate this but wikipedia is not a debating blogsite. Your opinions are, I am sure, well reasoned and speak to your background on the subject, but, until he becomes your patient they are opinions and should nott trump a sourced article. Especially since it is a first person item and not some third party recollection. However, I would suggest that you might want to take your concerns to the wikiproject for biographies to see if you can get some kind of consensus and whatever they decide will be okay by me. MarnetteD | Talk 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to argue about it, really, but I just found it exceedingly strange and tried to propose a compromise that catered to both parties. I do recall a part in "The Secret Life . . ." where a doctor put him so unlaughably high on the BP scale that he was very concerned, and that would certainly be a sourced counterargument. I'll look into it and see if it has merit. If not, I'm sure that he'll clarify it sometime in the future. Minervamoon 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gresham's School?

Gresham's often claim him as an old boy, but Fry himself denied ever going to Gresham's when I saw him at a book launch in Norwich in 1998. Is there a definite reference for the claim? Ghughesarch 12:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In Frys latest book based on the TV series about his travels round America he states he never went to Gresham's and does know that people keep adding this incorrect information to Wikipedia Penrithguy (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is the definitive answer, but the Gresham's connection has been appearing on BBC web pages (such as this one) for longer than it has on Wikipedia. It would be interesting to know how it all began. Xn4 (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Revenge and The Count Of Monte Cristo

As far as I know, Mr. Fry started writing "Revenge" and then, at one moment, he realized he was writing what could be considered a modern day "Count Of Monte Cristo". So I don't know if it would be accurate to say "Revenge" is Stephen Fry's take on "The Count Of Monte Cristo", since he wasn't thinking of "The Count Of Monte Cristo" when he thought of his novel, but after he had started and noted the similarities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.45.41.59 (talk • contribs).

Cant you cite a source for that? If there is, for example, an interview where Stephen says this, we can quote that in the article. Without a source we shouldn't change what it there. Thanks, Gwernol 12:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can. It is in the afterword "Forget Ideas, Mr. Author. What Kind Of Pen Do You Use?" of the American version ("Revenge: A Novel"), which starts in page 317. The actual confession is in page 319. I'll write it here.

My latest novel, "Revenge", cause me a very specific hair-raising and sleep-depriving problem. I had planned it out in my head, which is about as much planning as I ever do, not being an index-card, scnario, or flow-chart person. It was a story of wrongful imprisonment and subsequent vengeance. As I thought the narrative through, a little voice started whispering wicked thoughts into my ear.

"This isn't very original", it would say. "I've heard it before."

At first I didn't pay much attention. When did any of us last read an original story? Original writing is the issue. Treatment is all. But then one night I sat bolt upright in bed and screamed in horror. The truth had suddenly exploded into my consciousness.

The story, the plot I had been working out with such pleasure, was not just unoriginal, it was a straight steal, virtually identical in all but period and style to Alexandre Dumas's "The Count Of Monte Cristo".

What does a writer do on such ocassions? Abandon his narrative and embark upon another? I was already three chapters in, and those authorial juices that take so long to summon up were flowing nicely. "

There is more, but right now I'm in a hurry and can't write it all, so if someone has a copy and can write it, it would be nice. Anyway, he goes on telling that he then went to buy all the editions of The Count Of Monte Cristo he could find, because he was sure that "Dumas pinched the story too", and he found one introduction to one of the editions that said that the story was, in Dumas's day, a kind of urban legend that he had "gratefully lifted". The then continued working since he was sure the outline was not original to Dumas,that a "literally reworking" or "homage" was perfectly acceptable, and that it wasn't plagiarism.

Now, in my opinion, that constitutes an original idea that happened to be incredibly similar to another idea who wasn't that original after all. Fry thought of that story in his head, Dumas's took it from an urban legend. It is debatable but I don't think it would be fair that it's his take on the novel, since he said that it's a homage or reworking after he had already started to write it as an original, probably to shut up critics and people who would accuse him of plagiarism.

Stephen Fry hates kiwi

It's a fact - I've seen it on QI

I feel it is a fact that will enhance and complete the picture that we are painting about the great man himself.

It's really a very minor fact - like listing someone's favourite colour. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse?

I'm watching Channel 4's Shrink Rap and they're doing Fry, he is talking about being abused by a 17/18 year old boy when he was 15 at school. I would consider this notable for the article, can somebody add this? Andrewjd 22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He mentions this in Moab is my Washpot, but from the way he describes it there I'd be surprised that he now claims he was "abused", even though he was not, it seems, a specially willing participant. I just want to clear up how this could be presented in the article as I didn't see the Channel 4 programme and I'm not sure, from what I've read, that Fry himself considers himself to be a "victim", which the use of the word "abuse" tends to suggest. Ghughesarch 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fry indeed seemed resistant to the notion that it counted as abuse. Stephenson/Connolly implied he was in denial about this, citing that his poetry regarding the event was heavy with trauma. He dismissed this poetry as portraying what he thought he should have been feeling about the event, rather than what he actually felt. A neutral note with brief quote from Moab may be the best approach if it is considered an important detail for the entry. Tubusy 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"his renowned intellect"?

"his renowned intellect has most recently led to the success of television panel game QI, of which he is host."

isn't that slightly biased? :P --Leladax 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

'Widely known and esteemed ... faculty of acquiring and applying knowledge.' QI is successful, he is the host. No, that's all very objective. :) Tubusy 00:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

While I understand that much of this article is written in an homage to the style of its subject, I have nonetheless made some edits to put a lid on some of the excess. Piperdown 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

One of five people...

I know there's a source for it, but the claim he was one of 5 people to know the ending of the final Harry Potter book is pretty wrong.

JK Rowling knew it. She's also said someone in her family also was allowed to read it, I think it was her husband. Then there's the two audiobook readers, Jim Dale and Stephen Fry. Also, the two illustrators, Mary Grandpre and Jason Cockcroft. And there's her editors at both Bloomsbury and Scholastic. And, the translators for the various world editions. There are quite a few more people than 5 who knew the ending of the book.

Don't know if this is worth putting in the article, but I just thought I'd mention it. Tredanse 14:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The information came from a cited source (as should all information in Wikipedia). The linked article clearly states that there were only five people who knew the ending. If you can find a citation to counter that, feel free to add it, otherwise it would fall under the heading of Original Research. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling, Stephen Fry, Neil Murray[4], Arthur Levine [5], Jim Dale [6], Mary GrandPre [7], Cheryl Klein[8] - that's seven, and possibly more. I'll have to read up on Wikipedia referencing conventions before I add to the article, but I figure something along the lines of "He stated in an episode of QI to be one of just five people worldwide to know the ending of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows before it officially went on sale, although at least seven people actually knew:" and then a list of names with a footnote for each source. Tredanse 16:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be Original Research. If you can find a reputable website or publication that says that then it can be quoted, otherwise it's not permissable. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which of the above is Original Research? (I'll also note this Time Magazine article that confirms Klein, Levine and GrandPre: [9]) Tredanse 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added an extra comment to that paragraph, sourcing each person involved (apart from JK Rowling, you don't need a source to know that she knew the ending of her own book). The sources were a Jonathan Ross interview, a Time Magazine article, Detroit Free Press and a verbatim excerpt from a New York Times article on a fansite - the latter being the only one people might have a problem with in terms of reputable sources, but the actual New York Times article needs registration to view. Tredanse 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please put in a reference to the Times article, rather than a link to a fansite. Not all Wiki cites have to be Web-accessible, but they do need to meet the WP:V requirements, which a fansite quote does not. --Orange Mike 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably Fry didn't do all the technical stuff on the reording himself... or did he? If not, then engineer(s)/producer(s)must have known the ending as well, unless they somehow did it without monitoring what Fry was saying. Which would just be shoddy work. -88.109.25.204 11:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And typesetters and printers... anyone who believes that only seven people knew the ending must think that books just print themselves. -88.109.25.204 11:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture

What happened to that picture of him? I think he was holding a game show card or something... Speedboy Salesman 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a screenshot of an episode (or maybe the cover of the DVD, I can't remember) of QI and, as such, can only be used to illustrate the QI article (in the same way that CD covers can only be used to illustrate the CD in question, and not the band). See WP:NONFREE -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So does someone actually have to go up to him and take a picture specifically to be used on Wikipedia? You should probably remove every single picture on every celebrity then. --Tyrfing 22:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it has to be something like that, yes. Right now there is a Blackadder picture on, which is particularly bad beccause not only doesn't it illustrate Stephen Fry the way he actually looks, it also is about a serie. I haven't removed it because I don't have a better alternative, but this is bad. Allthecoolnamesweretaken 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Image Consensus

As we don't have a free image for Mr Fry yet, I inserted the placeholder image, which is used on many infoboxes without images (Image:Replace this image male.svg). MarnetteD seems to think the infobox looks better without it, so I'd like to get a consensus (Keep placeholder image or Remove) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - it makes it easier, when editing the article, to see what the page will look like when a suitable image is found. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - When editing the article it is unseen anyway. It looks tacky - now that is just to me I am sure that others don't mind it. Having seen at least a dozen pictures in this spot, and considering the stringent rules regarding pictures, I think it would be better to say if rather than is found. But, like JediLofty I hope one is found that can be used also. MarnetteD | Talk 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Remove If no image is there then it is perfectly obvious one is needed. If someone adds a non free image, just remove it, and better still try and contact Stephen Fry and ask if he will release a picture of himself under a free license (so anyone can use it). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Remove - I can see its use - but I do think it's rather ugly in an article. I have posted a request for a picture on Facebook - and we'll see if anything comes of it. Stevebritgimp 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the placeholder image. It provides a good link to info about uploading, and stimulates action. Plus it was added by User:David Gerard, who is the Wikimedia UK press contact, and knows of which he speaks... ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I promise not to edit-war it back, I shall instead work to secure a properly freely licenced image, which should resolve the matter in a manner satisfactory to all :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First to say 'Fuck'

Allegedly Fry was the first of the 'alternative' comedians to say 'F-ck' on British TV. I believe it happened on Central Weekend (Trevek 12:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

I think it's more likely that he said "fuck". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Live TV? The first aired use of 'fuck' on British TV?

-G

Celibacy

"Fry struggled to keep his homosexuality secret during his teenage years at public school, and was celibate for 16 years." Does this mean he was celibate until 16 years old which is not particulary noteworthy or from some particular time which is not specified. I don't quite understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.192.84 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.11.8 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added dates for this period (reffed from a Sunday Herald article) to clarify that sentence - Dumelow (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Fry's father a physicist?

Are there any sources that confirm Stephen Fry's father is a Physicist? On "Who do you think you are", Fry stated that his father achieved a First in Physics, but I don't think he said that he was actually a Physicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjk (talk • contribs) 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he describes him as a physicist in Moab -- I remember this, because from the description of his work, he sounded more like an engineer. Certainly, from the description, he appears to be an applied rather than basic scientist. I don't have my copy to hand, so can't look it up. Joe D (t) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Learning to spell Humorist

Humourist or Humorist. Well you learn something everyday!

After I was sure it was spelt with a u and found this, which showed it was humour, I assumed it must be humourist

Chris 42 put me right. Pretty conclusive.

Checking with <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humourist>, I found these references for humourist

"humourist." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 22 Apr. 2008.

and these for humorist at <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humorist>.

"humorist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 22 Apr. 2008.

"humorist." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 22 Apr. 2008.

"humorist." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 22 Apr. 2008.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online has...

humourist was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

humourist was found in the Dictionnaire Cambridge Klett Compact in the following entries: humo(u)rist

The free dictionary has both spellings.

chambers goes for humorist

wiktionary likes humourist as an alternative spelling.

www.google.co.uk has 13,400 entries for humourist and 31,500 for humorist so I guess I am not alone in spelling it incorrectly.

Conclusion: humorist is strongly preferred to humourist (in the UK and US) but as with all living languages it may yet change.

--Brian R Hunter (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Gormenghast

This article doesn't mention the role he played as Titus Groan's teacher (and later headmaster) in the miniseries adaption of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.65.152 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band

There's no obvious section for this, and it doesn't seem big enough to deserve its own, but should Stephen's work with the Bonzos get a mention? He appeared with them in their reunion concert, and is also on their new cd released this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjl16 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Cab

I changed it to a 1988 former black cab, rather that a former 1988 black cab. As it was, it appeared that the cab was formerly 1988; which obviously makes little sense.69.137.144.26 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bright

Can anyone find the quotation where Hugh Laurie says that SF is not as intelligent as people seem to imagine? Was it in the Radio Times? 62.64.210.122 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

the machine that made us

how come there is no metion of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.77 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to his documentary about the Gutenberg press? MFlet1 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.77 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of this before. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Crystal Cube

This article says:

In 1983, the BBC offered them their own show, which became The Crystal Cube, a mixture of science fiction and mock documentary that was axed after the first episode… Forgiving Fry and Laurie for The Crystal Cube, the BBC commissioned…

yet The Crystal Cube says that the show was only a pilot. Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish?

If it is established that Mr Fry is anti-religious (see above) does that not make his claim to be 'Jewish' utterly preposterous? He was baptised and raised a Christian (although his mother was of Jewish parentage) so that is his default religion, unless he has formally re-entered the Jewish faith.Fiddleback (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As Jonathan Miller commented in "Beyond the Fringe", "I'm not really a Jew, just Jew-ish. Not the whole hog, you know". However, see Who is a Jew? for an explanation of the relationship between religious Judaism and ethnic Jewishness: "In traditional Judaism, a Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother or who is a convert to Judaism. No other way to recognition is allowed for. As a result, the mere acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not by themselves make a person a Jew. But, conversely, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion." Ghughesarch (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Talk page now archived into two smaller, manageable pages. --Uksam88 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and combined the archives. They made no sense chronologically - for example, archive 1 contained some comments from 2008, when it was labelled as having comments up to January 2007. A page size of 63 kilobytes is fine for a talk page archive. Graham87 14:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that, it was my first ever effort at archiving and i was unsure how do deal with length. Uksam88 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is Stephen Fry's twitter link an exception to WP:ELNO

Is Stephen Fry as a famous twitter user an exception to the policy of not linking to twitter accounts in External Links? 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

N The guidance from WP:ELNO is normally interpreted so that links to twitter should be avoided (as External Links) and I propose removing Stephen Fry's twitter feed from the External Links section. Considering more than one source in the References section already cites and links to twitter.com, is there a consensus to apply the general policy here as I suggest and the link removed from External Links (considering Fry's official site and blog is already linked in the infobox)? Alternatively, if the consensus is to keep, and a clear rationale can be put forward, I suggest this example is then added to the Wikipedia talk:External links#Twitter proposal to help with improvements to that guideline with respect to unique and noteworthy cases.—Teahot (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't read the advice in ELNO as applying to the Twitter feed of the subject of a biographical article in that very article. Frankly it seems totally clear that his Twitter link should be in the article, and if the policy says otherwise, we should try to fix the policy. ciphergoth (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a self-published source about a notable person (we'd link to his official homepage, right?), and his use of it as a self-published source is itself notable. Keeping out a link to his twitter feed seems odd. Not all twitter feeds should be linked to, e.g. for privacy reasons for people less in the public eye, but there's no such concern here. Fences and windows (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Referring to WP:SELFPUB there is no argument about using a twitter feed as a legitimate source in a biographical page and Fry's page does use the feed in a few references. Whether it should be duplicated in the External Links section is a separate issue (taking into account his official site and his twitter feed are different things) and would mean an exception to WP:ELNO (which has been recently revised, see diff).—Teahot (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Official sites are exempt from the EL:NO portion of the guideline, but how many official "site(s)" is open to the judgement of people editing an article. One official site is usually best. I really can't see how something as changeable as a Twitter page would ever be also linked to, especially if his main official site links to a Twitter page. Also additionally Twitter page is used as a refence, so since duplicating references in external links should not commonly be done removing the Twitter external link seems the pretty clear way to go. 2005 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it's already used as a reference, I don't see a reason to have it duplicated in the EL section. If it weren't used as a reference, however, I would see it as an acceptable EL. So I'm only opposed to it being there for aesthetic/duplication reasons, as it were. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• At the top of that entry, there is an exemption for official pages of the article's subject. That applies pretty clearly here. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really understand why Twitter is considered unacceptable for EL in the first place. Can someone explain that to me? Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What does Twitter really have to do with an article about this person. How does adding the link make the article better? Really? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the answer to your questions are contained in the RfC. Btw, I don't really understand why Twitter is considered unacceptable for EL in the first place. Can you explain that to me? Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why twitter should be considered unsuitable in most cases; however in the case of Stephen Fry it is something that has been noted about him in the British media, and is therefore relevant. See WP:IAR.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion (if I might be so bold), the consensus view (pretty much) is that as Stephen Fry's twitter feed is part of his "official" site, it is reasonable to keep a link to it in the External Links section. This situation is catered for within the current WP:ELNO guidance. The RFC has been closed on this basis.—Teahot (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Drugs

No sure how reputable this link is but to give a balanced view of the man would it not be wise to include brushes with drugs?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010218/ai_n14523575/

And there are probably more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.180 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

I'm fairly sure Stephen's position as an Atheist is fairly obvious now. He on numerous occasions has criticized belief in God and religion e.g. "Religion, shit it", and I point example to his discussion's with Christopher Hitchens. [10]. "If there was a God". We should at least regard him as a Humanist, surely? Whatever the case, he certainly isn't religious. Jacob Richardson (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before; as of last October, nobody could find any quotes that self-identified Fry as 100% atheist (the nearest we got was him talking of "atheist beginnings" whose "shadow remains" on his own website). From sources provided, everything he's put on record could equally place him as an agnostic, or a believer with rational doubts.

It's a very big leap of WP:OR to go from "has criticised religion and sometimes uses a hypothetical tone when discussing god" to "self-identifies as an atheist", and we shouldn't be making that assumption, even if it seems "fairly obvious". --McGeddon (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The clearest printed reference I could find where Fry describes himself as an atheist is from 9th May:

• "Would I live in America? In a heartbeat; inaugural Spectator Lecture at the Royal Geographical Society". The Spectator. May 9, 2009. p. 28. Sometimes belief means credulity, sometimes an expression of faith and hope which even the most sceptical atheist such as myself cannot but find inspiring. 'I have a dream' is the refrain of the most famous American speech of the last 100 years. Martin Luther King's chorus is perhaps the signature American credo..

—Teahot (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good to see a new source. I think that seems fair enough, so long as the quote still stands up as "I am purely an atheist" in context (rather than his apparently usual "part of me is atheist"). Would be better to have an actual interview where someone asks him directly, and he gives an answer, but I think this is enough for WP:BLP. --McGeddon (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The text of his speech was available at Spectator:would-i-live-in-america-in-a-heartbeat but appears to have since been removed. I have put a copy here (it's long) to give some context, on the assumption that it will appear again at the Spectator site in the near future.—Teahot (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The text has also appeared on Stephen's own website: http://www.stephenfry.com/blog/2009/07/04/americas-place-in-the-world/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.4.35 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Directly asked? He was asked on Never Mind the Buzzcocks if there was a God, he instantly said "no". Hardly a reliable source, but still :) J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That just implies a dismissal of monotheism, not all religions. Luminifer ([[User talk:Luminifer|talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree- it implies atheism, which is the lack of belief in any god. Nontheism is the lack of belief in your standard monotheist God- a nontheist could still believe in some sort of god (say, if they were a deist). Both can exist independently of anireligious sentiment, which would be a dismissal of all religions. Of course, this debate is purely academic. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

He did not answer "no" to "are there many gods?" but to "is there a god?". There is a difference. We also need to be particularly careful with the different interpretations of the meaning of atheism (which as a word may mean something other than what its roots imply) : In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unspiritual. However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have been described as atheistic.. Luminifer (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This was just a joke on a comedy panel show (from the archive: "Stephen, while you're here, is there a god?" "No. No darling, no.") - we shouldn't overanalyse it. --McGeddon (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems apparent that we now have a reliable source stating his atheism clearly. Is there any point debating it further?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

he said I don't believ in God at the Hay- how many more times does he have to say it? 68.48.213.37 (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cities, history, vandalism

Suran (most probably Surany at the time) could not have been a part of Slovakia, since the country did not come into existence until the late '90s. It was either in the Kingdom of Hungary or Chechoslovakia, please don't revert changes pointing to more accurate historical descriptions. Claiming that his maternal grandparents came from Slovakia is like saying Troy was a Turkish town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.1.215 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All the things which might have been

In the article it says, "Fry would have been brought up in the United States had his father not turned down a job at Princeton University." Surely there are an infinite number of things which Fry might have been, had something which occured in his life, occured differently. What is the point of such a statement? Stephen Fry would have been brought up in Poland had Britain invaded that country two centuries ago and established a centre of academic excellence there to which Fry's father had been invited to become a permanent member of staff - unless he had married a different woman as a result and consequently not had Stephen Fry as a son. It didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, as it disrupts the flow of the page. It's already mentioned in the article about Stephen Fry in America, where it belongs. Graham87 13:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

Would anyone object to a Bibliography section being added for books written by Fry? This would make cross-referencing them easier and a full {{citation}} rather than the current prose of Stephen Fry#Literature.—Ash (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only would I not object; I'd welcome it. It would improve the encyclopedia and offer greater benefits to our readers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, added. I suggest use of the {{harv}} or {{harvtxt}} templates rather than footnotes to cross-reference these in the text.—Ash (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fry's Twitter influence

Stephen Fry's influence through the use of Twitter has become considerable. I think there should be a wholly new section on this page entailing these new developments. Not to mention his original advocacy of and aid in publicising the site. As of now, his involvement with the website is mentioned a grand total of...1 time. Please see these articles for reference. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/gill-hornby/6349700/Dont-laugh---Stephen-Fry-is-giving-the-orders-now.html, http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/10/14/did-stephen-fry-and-twitter-really-score-a-victory-for-free-speech/, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7845823.stm Crazy Eddy (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Statements about Poland and Auschwitz, antipolonism

Something needs to go into the article about his slanderous incinuation that Poland was in some way complicit with Auschwitz. This "nonsense" is eminating from the lips of Stephen Fry. This is discrimination against Poles. It is the Poles that require protection, not Stephen Fry.

Perhaps, anonymous poster, you could try reading the sentence that has caused such outrage. Fry said, "There has been a history, let's face it, in Poland of a right-wing Catholicism which has been deeply disturbing for those of us who know a little history, and remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on." To be slander that statement would have to be untrue, and it isn't. To be discrimination against Poles, it would have to be a proven fact that Poles (not "Poland", but Poles) took no part in what happened at Auschwitz. He could perhaps have phrased it better, but to describe Fry as an "anti Polish racist" as one wiki-editor has, is simply not borne out by the facts of what was said, in relation to his concerns about the British Conservative Party's association with a modern, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, nationalistic right-wing grouping of Poles in the European Parliament. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The full interview can be seen here [11]. The actual sentence, in totality, was "There has been a history, let's face it, in Poland of a right-wing Catholicism which has been deeply disturbing for those of us who know a little history, and remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on, and know the stories, and know much of the antisemitic acts and homophobic and nationalistic elements in countries like Poland." There is nothing remotely 'racist' or 'slanderous' about this, and it is little short of hysterical to suggest that there is. He refers to the side of the border to link to 'the stories' about antisemitic Poles of the period. Obviously if Auschwitz had been in France there would have been no link at all to broader attitudes in Poland, but it might have been relevant to refer to French collaboration and knowledge of the camp. It is clumsily expressed for sure, but he is speaking off the cuff so we can't expect finely crafted phrases. For me the silliest bit is what he says about the late 30s at the end of the interview. Utter nonsense. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to add those awful Fry's opinion on Poland later to the article. It's really sad to see such comments, related to discrimination and antipolonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.139.216 (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. There is no 'discrimination' at all. At least not in the sense in which you mean it. Paul B (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's you who's ridiculous. Stephen Fry's statement was a media news in all Polish portals - wp.pl, interia.pl, gazeta.pl and dziennik.pl. This fact is even worth to write about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.115.99 (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was. That does not make the hysterics any less ridiculous, nor does it make the word 'discrimination' meaningful (unless it is being used in its proper sense, which it was not). Paul B (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read any of those news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.115.99 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read what Fry actually said? Is what's being reported in Poland- in Polish - his actual words, or some loose translation of them with a different nuance? Ghughesarch (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[12] this is one of the news I'm going to use in the article. Translation of the leading: Polish embassy in London protests against Fry's statement which suggested that Poland is co-reliable for German crimes in Auschwitz and that geographic location of Auschwitz had its reasons. 83.31.75.199 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use that source per WP:NONENG; it will only be reverted. DKqwerty (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Fry's statement which suggested that Poland is co-reliable for German crimes in Auschwitz and that geographic location of Auschwitz had its reasons" - well, that proves my point, Fry did not actually say that, it's one (mis)interpretation that's being put on it by the Polish media.Ghughesarch (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the statement by Robert Szaniawski of the Polish Embassy in London was given in ENGLISH, so the source is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.144 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was Fry singling out Poland for anti-semitism? There are numerous stories of (gentile) Poles helping Jews around the period of WW2, despite the dangers if they were found out, and Jews have inhabited Poland for many centuries. Why is Fry linking his allegations about anti-semitism and homophobia in Poland with Auschwitz, given that it was a German concentration camp on German occupied territory throughout its period of operation? Although the largest ethnic grouping to be victems of the atrocites carried out in the Auschwitz concentration camp, there were also many gentile Poles who suffered there. Most of Poland was occupied and the small bit that was left was surrounded by enemy troops, so it makes no sense to talk about borders. Whatever the (legal) definition of slander and of discrimination, his remarks are deeply offensive to Poles. Everyone has the right to free speech, but for Stephen Fry to broadcast such blatently historically inaccurate statements (without being challenged by Jon Snow, the Channel Four News interviewer) is unacceptable. Would similar remarks against, say muslims, be tolerated? Stphen Fry is showing his ignorance of history, as are some of the others who are contributing to this discussion.

Anyway, I hope the actual Wikipedia articles are of quality and factually correct, unlike some of the comments on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.144 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not jump to conclusions, condone novel synthesis, or give undue weight to topics of limited notability. The ultimate notability of any of this has yet to be established in a reliable manner and to address it as anything more than a recent event is premature. DKqwerty (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions... Maybe Stephen Fry will apologise and retract his statement about Auschwitz?

However, the atrocities carried out at Auschwitz and other concentration camps were notable for how low the human race can stoop. This is an important topic and should not be clouded by falsehoods, such as those implied by Stephen Fry. Has it been established, by the way, that Saint Maximilian Kolbe was killed in Auschwitz by Polish Catholics? Or am I premature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.144 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Why was Fry singling out Poland for anti-semitism?" - because he was being interviewed as one of the signatories of a letter which expressed concern about the modern-day British Conservative party's links to modern-day anti-semitic Polish politicians in the European Parliament. At no point did he say that Polish gentiles did not die at Auschwitz, at no point did he say that Poland as a nation, then or now, had any moral responsibility for Auschwitz. He did point out that there has been a long right-wing 'tradition' within Poland (not involving every Pole, or the whole Polish state). Auschwitz was in German-occupied territory, but that doesn't mean that only Germans were aware of its existence, or that only Germans turned a blind eye to, or collaborated in, what happened there. Nor does it mean that every Pole, or even a majority of Poles, did so.Ghughesarch (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone wrote above that statement by Robert Szaniawski of the Polish Embassy in London was given in ENGLISH, so the source is acceptable. Are statements in Polish unacceptable? 83.31.75.199 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NONENGGhughesarch (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available - this is the case here. I will use some Polish sources to make this article better. 83.31.75.199 (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Let's be clear: this article cannot turn into a history lesson of the Holocaust or a POV condemnation of Fry. The comments he made were in the context of the present day only using the past as a historical parallel. He in no way implies that the Holocaust was Poland's fault nor that Poland wasn't affected by it, nor that Poles are still as a people anti-Semitic. Please keep a calm head if you choose to edit this article and use reliable sources, ensure information isn't sourced from editorials, give claims proper weight, and make sure you're not violating biography policies. DKqwerty (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So why, Ghughesarch, did he say remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on? What do you expect Poles to do, even if there was someone who knew about a concentration camp? If a gun is pointed at your head, or a gun is pointed at your family, are you suprised people complied with the Germans? I reiterate, such comments by Stephen Fry are grossly offensive and it is quite reasonable for wikipedia to record such statements by Stephen Fry and the reaction to them. See for example rivers of blood speech. I agree the article should state (only) the facts, e.g. verbatim quotes, and should link to relevant moderated articles on issues such as WWII history and German concentration camps. Please let's quote the facts, rather than quoting wiki rules and regulations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.144 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As DKqwerty has just pointed out, this isn't a page for history lessons about the holocaust and POV condemnation of Fry. However, please read all of the section 'Poles and the Jews' in the WP article The Holocaust in Poland, and Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946

I agree that the article should mention what Fry actually said - which is why I added it. It should also stick to the facts of the reaction to it. It should not, however, make unsubstantiated claims about what Fry is being interpreted by some to have implied, nor should it describe Fry as an "anti-Polish racist", for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

82.20.227.144: Please understand that everything you're saying is your opinion and Wikipedia doesn't accept novel synthesis of available information. I have not heard this covered on any American network, nor BBC World. I cannot speak to any other country's news, but unless it's in English it's difficult to verify these claims. You must also give consideration to the weight of all this; to "link to relevant moderated articles on issues such as WWII history and German concentration camps" is wholly, wholly inappropriate for a biography and completely irrelevant here. The comment and its context regarding the European Parliament are in the article. You ask us to quote the facts, and that has been done. Without reliable sources regarding the notability of any criticism (third-party sources, not first-party), no fact is considered "proven". And we're quoting Wiki rules in an effort to avoid policy violations; please do not purposefully ignore these policies. DKqwerty (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

DKqwerty:when I first added information about Fry's remarks to the page, I also added two links to reputable English language news sources (The Daily Telegraph newspaper and Channel Four News, which had carried the original interview) regarding the reaction to them from the Polish Embassy. I see now that these have been removed, in my view wrongly - not because I agree with the Polish position on the matter, but because the controversy about Fry's remarks is what gives them notability. I am going to add those two sources back to the article. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed them because they had two completely different translations of what was said. A third source would help determine exactly what was said. DKqwerty (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the Channel Four report carries the complaint made to Channel Four about the interview, while the Telegraph reports a shorter general press statement which is also reproduced by the Warsaw Business Journal here [13] There seems to be no particular reason not to include both, as one summarises the other in more measured terms. They were both statements from the Polish Embassy in London to outside media bodies, so will have originally been in English, not two different translations from a single Polish original Ghughesarch (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The actual video of the interview was on the web - I'll try to add a link to this discussion page.

See wiki-article Collaboration during World War II which states that There is a general consensus among historians that there was very little collaboration with the Nazis among the Polish nation as a whole, compared to other German-occupied countries and gives three sources. Perhaps the Stephen Fry wiki-article should link to and/or make use of this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.144 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not. In case it isn't already abundantly clear: this is not the place for a history lesson. Please be aware that posting the video in the article is not a reliable source and may also be a copyright violation. DKqwerty (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the Channel Four News page already linked (at footnote 59) from the article includes the full interview. As Fry did not say anything about the extent of Polish collaboration, further links to the collaboration article are not relevant.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to listen to the whole interview from the URL below: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/06/video-stephen-fry-says-david-cameron-has-aligned-himself-with-homophobes/

Note there is an entries for the Polish Law and Justice (PiS) party - suggest the links are added to the main article. Perhaps the Law and Justice entry should link back to Stephen Fry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.144 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done as a one way link from here to there, for the purpose of clarifying the background to the interview. I see no benefit in a link back however, as the controversy about their links with the Conservative Party is already adequately covered there. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please remove the See Also links, they are over the top and very misleading!Filastin (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet Games

Please do not continue to add this section regarding eUK for the following reasons:

• All references are sourced from erepublik.co.uk, which is a first-party source. This is a conflict of interest of sorts, as only third-party sources are considered reliable sources.
• There are far too many external links inline with the text, all of which lead back to the erepublik.co.uk forums; user-submitted content is not considered a reliable source.
• Given that none of the provided links are third-party, all information contained in the section is original research, of no known notability, and given undue weight given that notability cannot be established.
• It is written from an highly POV perspective, as if written by a user; NPOV must be maintained at all times.
• The persistence of this particular edit indicates to me that the user's who continue to revert have either a conflict of interest and/or this is simply spam.

If my last point is incorrect, I apologize. However, each of the other points must be addressed before this section meets Wikipedia standards. DKqwerty (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"All references are sourced from erepublik.co.uk, which is a first-party source. This is a conflict of interest of sorts, as only third-party sources are considered reliable sources." What!? So, let me get this straight, if Stephen Fry won the Nobel Peace Prize, it would be unacceptable to cite the Nobel Committee saying they'd awarded the prize? Who the hell are you supposed to cite!? "Nobel Prize Watchers Anonymous"? Where are they getting their references from in not the Nobel Committee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.65.83 (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the newspapers that reported it? Sources should be reporting upon something that has nothing to do with themselves in order to be a third party source. Hope I was of assistance. Tory88 (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More Film

Fry also appeared in the 1998 film "A Civil Action" where he played the part of Pinder, the expert witness on geological evidence. Lds8714 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pipe Smoker of the Year

"Fry was the last person to be named Pipe Smoker of the Year before the award was discontinued.^{[citation needed]}"

Stephen mentioned this in a B-series episode of QI (bears, bulbs, and bamboo; ty Dave). I'm not quite sure how to put in a citation, but the article is protected so an attempt would be moot. It's also interesting to note that he's the last listed on Pipe Smoker of the Year. — Kurr 21:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thesaurus nickname

Stephen Fry also annouced that he wanted his name to be carved onto his gravestone as Stephen 'My Bottom is a Treasure House' Fry, in reference to one of the guests claiming that Thesaurus (the Latin word meaning 'Treasure House' of, in this case, words) could be used to refer to someones bottom, since the romans refered to their penis's as 'Saurus' (Latin for lizard) on an Episode of QI that was aired on Fashion week with fashion being the episodes theme. Shouldn't we honor Stephens wishes, but instead of waiting for him to die and put it on his gravestone, we should type his name on Wikipedia as Stephen John 'My Bottom is a Treasure House' Fry, as per his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryHopkins (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A comedian making a joke about a gravestone does not mean that we should now report his name differently, no. --McGeddon (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy Debate and stance on religion

Why is there no mention of the Blasphemy Debate here? In recent days Fry has become a more prominent critic of religion and the Blasphemy Debate is a good source to base a possible section on Fry's stance on religion. Also worth noting is his appearance on Channel 4's "history of the bible" in which he argues that the ten commandments are bad for society. Perhaps the fact that he remains a popular 'national treasure' in Britian whilst being so much against religion is worthy of mention as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairmaneoin (talk • contribs) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That is important. Is there a transcript?--99.41.172.224 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} "Advertisment" (Article sub-header) spelled incorrectly. Yorkshirelad6 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks  Chzz  ►  00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Fry to take a break from Twitter

This was recently reversed as unsourced. The Independent now has this article: Ella Pickover, Press Association (04 January 2010). "Fry to take a break from Twitter". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) —Ash (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fry's own website "The New Adventures Of..." stated on the 28th January 2010 that he will be withdrawing from his usual activities until the end of April. In the past he has done this to write novels, or to concentrate on specific projects.

His self imposed silence was broken at the start of April by the launch of Apple's new iPad device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rend00 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Articulate Voice

Fry thought that he was born from a generation which was considered "Post-Punk", in which his manner and way of speaking would have been considered as "shoving someone's face in dirt". An interview with Craig Ferguson 2/23/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindan Thekkadath (talk • contribs) 02:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mattebers, 9 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change Cock Tavern Theatre to The Cock Tavern Theatre, as the theatre now has its own wiki page to link to.

Mattebers 11:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been done, here.  Chzz  ►  15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Welcome. I added the wikilink, but left the visible text alone. It's not clear reading the references, the theatre's website, or even the theatre's article, whether it is "The Cock Tavern Theatre" or merely "Cock Tavern Theatre". Please open another edit request with a conclusive source if youd like the text changed. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ciaran94, 22 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please update the "Video Game" section to include is upcoming continued role in the sequel to Fable II, Fable III.

Ciaran94 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please update the section about Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry's friendship, adding the following citation:

http://www.hughlaurie.net/fryandlaurie.html

See sidebar for this quotation:

The best thing that could have happened to me, both in career terms and emotionally. He is absolutely my best friend. People sometimes call me a Renaissance man, but I'm not and Hugh is. He's a natural athlete. He's a gifted musician. He is clever, perceptive, has natural charisma. Sometimes it is thought that I'm the loud mouth and the dominant one, but we have been an equal partnership. And we have not been jealous of each other — I'm genuinely thrilled when good things happen for him. And I'm particularly thrilled by the way his acting career is going. -Stephen Fry, on Hugh Laurie

67.169.13.68 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles.  Chzz  ►  18:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit Request

'Twinings' has been misspelled as 'Twinnings' in the section mentioning the advertisements in which Stephen has appeared. Can someone fix this, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.20.162 (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! Alistair Stevenson (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thumb link

The first picture of Fry has a caption containing a link to the GNU Project, which seems very improbable. Fry is not a computer scientist or software developer, as far as I can tell. I tried to alter the pipe to link to the GNU disambiguation page, but I have not succeeded yet. Perhaps someone who knows how can help. Ideally, the link should point to one of the pages the disambig page links to—possibly, Good News Unlimited?Donfbreed (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It was pointing to the right place. Fry is something of a computer 'geek'. [14] Paul B (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Is Stephen Fry DrSamuelJohnson on Twitter?

Is Stephen Fry DrSamuelJohnson [15] on Twitter? The Twitter character is erudite like him and has a sense of humour like him, and we all know what a Twitter junkie Fry is so has he created a comic alter ego on it? Does he have any alternative accounts on Twitter that are known about? 86.133.213.93 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No? Rehevkor ✉ 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Stephen Fry's domestic partnet was born in 1984. If they started their relationship in 1995 (as stated in the bio info sidebar), he would have been 11 years old! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.224.54 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kentucky colonel

he is a Kentucky colonel 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack

I was bold, and removed this on the grounds that it is not a neutral, disinterested point of view suitable for an article about a living person:

However, there has also been criticism, one journalist describing him as a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.

The journalist doesn't like the look of him? Really? I don't think this provides the balance that was being looked for. Trishm (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for photograph for Stephen Fry's time at NorCat

Would an established contributor like to take one of my photos, here http://www.flickr.com/photos/iandrake/sets/72157623582140316/ to illustrate Stephen Fry's time at NorCat? (ref Early Life) Eyeeffdee (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

These appear to be copyrighted and an invalid license to be used within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:FLICKR. Generally images of living people cannot be used under fair use and I don't see these as an exception. Rehevkor ✉ 23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My wife is in these photos. That's her on the right [16]. If you want pics of Stevie boy at this time we have some. However, if these are Eyeeffdee's own photos he can upload them himself. Paul B (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the Article page is semi-protected and I've not met the contribution conditions I'm not able to make any edits to the article. I'd be happy to make the photos of suitable licensing for Wikipedia usage Eyeeffdee (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you could just change the licencing on Flickr, or wait for a bit to upload to commons. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the licensing on this picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/iandrake/4415510656/in/set-72157623582140316/. An established contributor is welcome to add it to the article in some way. If you read the description on the flickr collection you will read how the photos were taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeeffdee (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Eyeeffdee (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the kind person that included my photo in the articles Eyeeffdee (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Luvvies

My addition:

Fry's article in The Guardian on 2 April 1988 is cited by the Oxford Dictionary of English as the earliest recorded use of the word Luvvie<ref>''op cit.''</ref>

was just reverted as "not credible and improperly cited". We can argue about citation style all night; but it's certainly credible - look in the OED. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I reverted this edit because it's unverifiable. I know on an edition of QI Emma Thompson mentioned that Fry's usage was the first cited in the OED, but this does not establish what the edit asserts - that Fry coined the word. For a start, the OED lists the preferred spelling as "luvvy" and a cursory search shows the word in use long before 1988. The phrase "Fry's article in The Guardian on 2 April 1988" is meaningless; how can anyone wishing to verify this addition know whether it refers to an article by Fry, or an article that quoted him? Which edition of the ODE cites this usage; using "op cit" as a reference makes this an unsourced edit to a BLP article, as it stands, it has to be removed. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Which version of the OED are you using? The online version uses 'luvvie' ('luvvy' suggests either 'luvvie' or 'lovey'). It does indeed give "1988 S. FRY in Guardian 2 Apr. 17/8 ..." as its earliest quotation. shellac (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The original edit cites the Oxford Dictionary of English. If the online Oxford English Dictionary lists a quotation from Fry then it would be a valid source for mentioning that, but it still needs a specific reference.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Added web reference, hope it's ok. As you rightly say luvvy / luvvie / lovey was in use long before Fry's article, but this very particular sense (derogatory, concerning actors) appears to be considered by the OED a relatively recent development. shellac (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you shellac Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Auschwitz

Ok then, our obscure word loving friend, please explain how this controvesy centres around Auschwitz? When in fact most controversy was caused by what he said about Poland in the sense of them harbouring anti-semitism, nationalism etc. ValenShephard (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It "centres around Auschwitz" because the controvery arose from the fact that he said in an interview that Auschwitz was on the Polish 'side of the border', implying that Poles were in some way responsible for it. There was no controversy about anything else he said. It was all about what he said about Auschwitz. This was the consensus title used by the people who created and debated this section, including the Poles who contributed. Paul B (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's all centred around Poland. ValenShephard (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on the fact that Auschwitz was in Poland. In fact there was no real controversy about Poland "harbouring anti-semitism, nationalism etc". Of course some people disagreed with that claim, but the furore was all about Auschwitz, and his subsequent apology was all about Auschwitz. He did not apologise for saying that there are antisemites and nationalists in Poland. See Talk:Stephen_Fry/Archive_1#Statements_about_Poland_and_Auschwitz.2C_antipolonism Paul B (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the current wording of that subsection doesn't give the impression you are telling me. It gives the impression the controvesy was centred around what he said about Poland. ValenShephard (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's unclear. See this google search. Fry was commenting on a right wing party in Poland but it only became a controversy because of his careless remark on Auschwitz. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am basing my views on what is written here, not outside. If I have misunderstood, then there is a chance the wording is not very clear, so an outside source, if it isn't already incorporated into the article, isnt very useful to me. ValenShephard (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We base out articles on outside sources. If the article is inconsistent with them, then the article needs to be changed. Explain what in the current content sems to be misleading or unclear. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheist

Fry has repeatedly expressed his rejection of religion, though he says he prefers to call himself a humanist rather than an atheist. He appears (sourced) on Wikipedia's own List of atheists (film, radio, television and theater). There are many videos of him expressing these views, though there is a question of defining sourcing.[17] There are newspaper reports referring to him as an atheist, especially following his debate about the RC church Catholic Herald. There does not seem to be any real doubt about this. The citations used on the List page are: "I knew I couldn't believe in God, because I was fundamentally Hellenic in my outlook." Fry, Stephen (2004 (1997)). Moab is my washpot. Arrow books. pp. 382. ISBN 9780099457046. ^ "Sometimes belief means credulity, sometimes an expression of faith and hope which even the most sceptical atheist such as myself cannot but find inspiring." Stephen Fry, Spectator Lecture at the Royal Geographical Society, reprinted as 'Would I live in America? In a heartbeat', The Spectator, 9 May 2009, Pg. 28. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Smoking

Stephen revealed in the Home and Houses episode of QI that he's given up smoking. While I am willing add this fact, it seems incomplete without know precisely when he stopped. Will it be fine to add this fact anyway? 81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not seen this episode yet but did he suggest it was a recent thing? An article from as far back as 2006 suggests he had quit then, per The Guardian. Probably worth mentioning per the Pipe Smoker of the Year thing but if he since started and again quit it may complicate matters. A passing mention in QI may not be the best reference anyway, as it's unlikely to give much in detail, and as a satire show may not be considered reliable at all. Rehevkor ✉ 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Heath section

Just wanted to point out that the health section needs scrubbing for both irrelevancy and structure 121.45.202.29 (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably also needs mentioning he was addicted to cocaine, according to his book. The Madras (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Fry's religion

His religion is marked as "None (Atheist)" but it can't be both "none" and "atheist". Perhaps it should be changed to non-theist? Are there any references? KylePIB (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why couldn't it be both? Atheism isn't a religion so the label "None (Atheist)" is correct.tty29A (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What's with this new-fangled rubbish that seeks to elevate atheism to the status of a religion? There's nothing wrong with being atheist, but it's no more a religion than theism per se is. One can believe there's an Almighty God yet still have nothing to do with any religion. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but who broke his nose?

That's what I came here to learn... Huw Powell (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

According to "Moab is my Washpot", he did it himself, by falling over as a child. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fry and Steven Webb

Fry is very much "out" about his close friendship with Steven Webb. There has been no denial that they are an item, widely reported in the press. As the pair have been photographed together at several social events, their "friendship" should at least be acknowledged and not doctored out of the respective entries as some keep doing. If they were not "out" they would not be out together as a couple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.243.76 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and as for his previous partner, it seems to be very much customary to report previous partnerships, with dates. I'll replace them, pending some justification for their removal. Rodhullandemu 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind replacing the old relationship, it was long and well reported, I just though as they were not married and is over it had little value in the infobox, but no worries. As for the daily mail claimed new lover ...there is little strength of report that he is in a new relationship, he has been seen with, I think its pretty soon to say its a relationship. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a source that states "partner", although it's only the Daily Mirror, but on the other hand, they know libel law as well as any other mainstream paper. When it comes down to it, "partner" isn't as strong a wording as "spouse", so I think we can regard boyfriends (and if it matters, girlfriends) as "partners", even if it's only on a temporary basis, since we don't require a civil partnership to seal the deal for such a term. Rodhullandemu 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Cohen is not his "partner" as they have split up! His present close public friendship with Steven Webb should be acknowledged. It is common knowledge that Webb is his social "partner" or have they split up already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.243.76 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

See[[18]]

If that's a reliable source for a biography, I am a banana. Rodhullandemu 23:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The template is perhaps not well-designed; but in any biography in which "spouse" or "partner" appears as a field, the convention seems to be that we list past partners as well as the current one, and I think if the template designers had intended to have "current partner", they would have made it so. Perhaps this should be discussed at the various template Talk pages rather than here, since this would seem to have a pretty wide impact if we are suddenly to depart from established norms (as it were). Maybe even this is the appropriate venue for such a discussion, but sorry, I have better things to be doing for the next month or so. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Public relationship

It is now well beyond speculation that Fry and Steven Webb are partners. They appeared together as such at the Baftas and have done so for many months now. So stop editing out this fact, it's beyond dispute and has not been denied by either party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A partner is someone that is a citable long term significant relationship - the citations do not support that this is true regarding webb. They have been seen together, the may have had a couple of dates but to assert that they are partners is totally a step too far and as I said, unsupported in the provided citations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Heres the addition you are desirous of -

Fry's partner is now the actor Steven Webb with whom he has appeared at a number of recent public events.

• - http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/sep/12/stephen-fry-interactive-show-profile

only content about webb ... " is now reported to be seeing the 25-year-old actor Steven Webb."

• - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294470/Stephen-Frys-Quite-Interesting-love-life.html

and - Fry "and has, I gather, been spending a lot of time with ­aspiring young actor Steven Webb, 26"

• - all we have is that Fry has reportedly been spending a lot of time with and is reported to be seeing Webb ..this does not make him Fry's citable infobox partner at all. Have you got a WP:RS that clearly states Webb is Fry's partner? or have you got something from fry asserting he is in a steady relationship with Webb? Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Im in agreement with off2roirob. Its not a great citation at the time. Its best to wait and see what eventually happens. Creation7689 (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. There are a few matter-of-fact sources that mentioned the relationship in passing ("Fry is in a relationship with 25-year-old actor Steven Webb.") when reporting on his Attitude interview, but there's an air of echo chamber and unattributed WP:BLPGOSSIP to them (some say more evasively that he is "currently understood to be in a relationship"), and the Attitude interview itself doesn't appear to mention Webb. We need to find a much higher quality source for a BLP claim such as this one. --McGeddon (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fourthed. Do any of you think that this discussion should be cross linked with, or copied to, the one on Webb's talk page for clarity? MarnetteD | Talk 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that it comes down to the exact same issues of sourcing; sure, good idea. --McGeddon (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The truth is out there. Sadly, not on this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip website. It requires WP:RSs. As soon as you present them rather than a rant the info can be assessed and consensus can be reached about its entry. MarnetteD | Talk 19:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement that they are "partners" is not "gossip". It is a statement of fact and that the two have made repeat public appearances as "partners" says more than words. It isn't meant to infer anything other than a "social" friendship. The UK media sources are reliable and have not been challenged. The denials are "History, Boys". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if that is true, it still needs to be sourced. Creation7689 (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is more than one editor who agrees that a better source is needed, to me at least that a different source should be used. No one is against adding that information. Creation7689 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. As I understand it Fry is a big tweeting person and if he is in a relationship that is meaningful and committed to him with someone who he considers himself to be in a partnership with and not just dating then you would think he would have tweeted something along those lines. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

But Fry has already had problems with the pitfalls of Twitter so probably he would not discuss it there, so Twitter is no more a reliable "source" than a newspaper article. The public outings are the "statement" and now that they have appeared socially together at major arts events, this says more than a social media posting which is not a "source". He probably does not Tweet on this to avoid spoiling the relationship with obsessive Tweeting after the previous break-up. And again, I have only suggested they are acknowledged as social "partners", nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

They are indeed "partners"

This:[19] states they are indeed "partners". Has Fry Tweeted to contradict this source? Not just QI but also QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@MrStevieWebb is indeed one of his Twitter friends. He tweeted him twice in January. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.245.80 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Liar

Parentheses following a reference to The Liar describe it as a 1993 novel, which I know to be untrue. The article on the novel categorizes it as a 1991 novel which seems plausible. I lack the resources to do extensive research or even to edit the article at the moment (it's a telephone about half the size of a chocolate bar) but this error definitely needs to be fixed. --Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bipolar

He is Cyclothymic, a more specific form of bipolar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZb5YbtvYhw&feature=player_embedded). The article is half-locked so I cannot edit. Sverri (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The link also doesn't work, unless it is an official youtube upload it will likely not be a WP:rs reliable source to support content here. Fry does seem to mention it in relation to himself in this tweet http://twitter.com/#!/stephenfry/status/1332661172 - Perhaps if he states it himself we could/should specify it - Cyclothymic - the illness does have its own wiki article, another independent reliable external support would be nice. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The video's title is "Craig Ferguson 2/23/10B Late Late show Stephen Fry PT1". In the video he says that he suffers from Cyclothymia, or "Bipolar Light", as he puts it. I am not very accustomed to editing articles, and I am not exactly sure how to judge source material, but I would think a video of him publicly talking about it would be a rather good source. Sverri (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZb5YbtvYhw - yes it does look like an official upload, I will look at it and as you assert this is a Reliable source for the alteration - you can add an edit protected request or post what you want to add and if I am still around I will add it for you. See - Wikipedia:Edit requests - or simply add - {{Edit protected}} - with your desired alteration. I watched the video - he says - "I am bi polar, and have manic moments where I an extraordinarily energized" - (6 mins 30 secs - I am actually Cylothomic - whats called in America bi polar light" ) I am logging off now - if this isn't added by someone else, I will add it tomorrow. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• note - I have added the detail to this section Stephen Fry#Health -  Done - Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the transcription "Bipolar Light" is intended for "Bipolar lite" - i.e a humorous way of saying "a mild form" of the disorder. Paul B (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected as per your comment Paul. thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

So, over at Wim Kok they are placing honorary degrees under Alma Mater, this would clean things up a lot. But I don't know if Dr.h.c. is also the prefix for British universities. --IIVeaa (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Fry/Archive 1
Alma mater	Queens' College, Cambridge University of Dundee (Dr.h.c.) Anglia Ruskin University (Dr.h.c.) University of Sussex (Dr.h.c.)

charity paragraph

It might be nice to have a seperate paragraph for the charities he supports. An outline for a paragraph could be:

• He often uses his the fame he has on twitter to direct his followers to various charitable causes.
• He is involved with the mental health charity Stand to Reason.^[125]
• He will succeed Lord Melvyn Bragg as President of Mind this year.
• Participated as a host to Comic Relief
• the HIV and Me documentary that he made in 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIVeaa (talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Stephen Fry cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Stephen Fry cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Other work

Ariadne on Naxos

Features in 2010 recording performing as Major-Duomo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.78.158 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He also recently did "Stephen Fry and the Great American Oil Spill" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.33.89.83 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Narrates Ocean Giants documentary series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.33.89.83 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Recently did "Stephen Fry's 100 Greatest Gadgets" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.33.89.83 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PeachyFanOfFry, 23 August 2011

please add in Other series that Stephen Fry is now involved in another nature documentary. He narrates a series of three episodes called Ocean Giants on BBC one about whales and dolphins.

PeachyFanOfFry (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This sentences is not correct;-

It was at the Footlights that Fry met his future comedy collaborator Hugh Laurie.

in fact, he met met Hugh Laurie through Emma Thompson and then was invited to join Footlights in his third year. This is is in his book "The Fry Chronicles" 81.136.149.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

confirming that --IIVeaa (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet Word

Why is information about his recent television series, "Planet Word", not staying in the article? Is it because this page has been semi-protected? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not because of protection. Please look at the edit history, and see that it is because the addition of this was not sourced. There is no citation for this. If you think it needs to be included, feel free to re-add it, but please provide a source. I am deleting this now because it has no citation, is in the wrong section and needs to be reworded a bit. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, the programme is currently showing on TV. Anyone can access it via the BBC website. Instantly removing undisputed material in this way just gets people's back's up unnecessarily and puts off editors. Surely we should all remember that we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not diminish it. Move it to the right section. If you really think that an undisputed fact needs a citation, add a tag, though I personally think that's unhelpful in these cases, since all that can be cited are TV schedules or newspaper reviews. Paul B (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you look at this website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b015qqkl/Frys_Planet_Word_Identity/

that will give a source for the programme. People could also read about the programme in copies of the Radio Times or other television guides that they might have. If we really do need to have a source for this, I hope that the above website, coupled with references to the "Radio Times" (appropriate issues), will be sufficient. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a ref to a review. If other editors really wanted to improve this page rather than just press buttons then we could have avoided unnecessary drama. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In JoannaSerah's defence, it's anyone's right to challenge unsourced material - although in this case there were dozens of usable sources to be found in a 10 second Google search. Anyhoo, it's in the article with sources so this should be considered resolved now. Яehevkor ✉ 10:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone asks me the time I have the right to to say to them 'I'm not going to tell you'. But I think most people would think that's an inappropriate response, even though it is within my rights. Taking a few seonds to look at your watch is more polite, more helpful and more humane. I think the same conduct should be the norm here. Paul B (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't go out of my way and try to research that. It's true. But the watch analogy fails because I did tell them what they asked and they could have looked at their own watch and got a source to begin with. Anyway... I'm glad it is in there, now. I try to be helpful and looking back at the edit history, I just got it in my head that that is how people handle this article (Because on some articles groups of editors are real picky about not including things without citations. Other articles, people let anything go, it seems like). But Paul B is right, I should have reworded it, tried to find a citation and moved it to the correct section. That would be much more generous and polite to other editors. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that the information should certainly be in about this series now. In the last edition of this series, Jimmy Wales was on and mention was made of Wikipedia!ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Atomic bombing survivor controversy

Do you think this section might be better in the QI article? It probably belongs here too, but it seems odd to me that the information is in this article but not the other, considering there were other people involved. There were the QI researchers who originally wrote the "unluckiest man in the world" question and the guests who made jokes about it (though it doesn't say who they were).

It also seems odd that the section calls them the "other guests", Fry isn't a guest, he's the presenter. 114.75.60.48 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is best placed in the QI article, if anywhere. I doubt Fry writes these questions and it is simply their given task to derrive irony and homour from the subjects given to them. undue weight also seems to be an issue given the single source in the article, which I should point out is a dead link with no archive to be found (the sites robots.txt prevents it). Яehevkor ✉ 16:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Fry does not write the questions, the researchers do. [20] Saying that "Fry brought up" the atomic bombing subject and called the man in question "the unluckiest man in the world" seems a bit misleading to me. I think it could be explained better. 114.74.179.247 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems we at least are in agreement. Any other users around to comment on this? I have removed the text for now, but I dislike acting on the consensus of two. Яehevkor ✉ 23:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the QI page would be the place for this: as you say, Fry didn't write the material, added to which I think there may have been some misunderstanding in Japan regarding of the nature of the show. Arthur Holland (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul and polish

Right, I've said this before with regard to other articles and it's not come to much, but I'm going to have a crack at getting the Stephen Fry article up to at least Good Article standard. He's a pretty major figure (in the UK at least) and his popularity, occasionally controversial nature, and activity in so many fields appears to have attracted a somewhat scattergun input to the article, with drive-by editors dropping in individual bits of trivia, resulting in a lot of cruft and not much structure.

Therefore I'm doing a polish/rewrite in my userspace (here) and will drop a first draft of that into the main article in a day or two. Feel free to comment on/criticise/make suggestions with regard to what I'm doing in my userspace version. Arthur Holland (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've posted the first pass at this I'll continue in a similar vein. I have (and will continue to) remove a certain amount of trivia, but I understand that other editors will have differing opinions on what should stay and what is essentially "fluff". I'm happy to discuss this and will try not to get dogmatic about it. Any thoughts welcome. Arthur Holland (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Arthur, well done for putting a lot of work in on this article. I have recently noticed that Good Articles with regard to actors and comedians seem to give a chronological account of the career rather than grouping a person's achievements by different media (e.g. Television, Radio, Writing). Do you think this might be a good direction to move the article towards? I thought maybe a articles structured as Hugh Grant and Paul Reubens are good examples of how this can be used effectively. I know it might be a bit difficult because Fry's work covers so many different projects and media. Let us know your thoughts anyway. Kaleeyed (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Personal Life section

I think it's a bit unruly and out of control at the minute. Is there any way some of this info could be migrated to other sections? Could do with a trim I think. Kaleeyed (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Stephen Fry signature.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Stephen Fry signature.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nauseating eulogy

Am I the only one not nauseated by this over-long eulogy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.63.119 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not nauseated too, since it's not particularly hagiographic as far as I can see. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

IP 81...: if you can identify any specific concerns about the article, please do so. And when posting to a talk page, please sign your post by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~). Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This part of thread collapsed per WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TPG, etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you're "not nauseated" by it, what's your issue? But if you are nauseated, which is what I suspect you mean, let me say that, while the article itself doesn't have that effect on me, Stephen Fry does. Oh, it's not him personally, but the fact that he's been everywhere imagineable and done everything imagineable and continues to be and do. You cannot turn on your TV without some program he's involved in being shoved down your throat, whether it's a know-all quiz show, or some travelogue/documentary, or straight acting (well, as straight as he can get), or interviewing someone else, or being interviewed by someone else. Then there's his books and his movies and his patronages and his blogs and his special causes and god knows what else. It's all just too much. Many people seem not ever to be able to get enough of him. But I got too much of him a long time ago. Enough, Stephen!! Take a break, mate! -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Jack this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject; your comments are not appropriate and not what article talk pages are for. Please delete them. Exok (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC) I have to concur (although I was impressed at your differentiation of "not nauseated" and "nauseated"—nice catch). The "as straight as he can get" was actually a bit over the line, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nose

One of the most noticeable features of Fry is his nose; is there any info on what happened t make it appear so 'distinguished'? Kitbag (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, he broke it while still pretty young (8-10ish I think). It's detailed in his first volume of memoirs. I shall dig it out and add it to the article (along with details of his elocution lessons as a young child, which resulted in another of his most distinctive features: his old-school RP diction). Arthur Holland (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It was broken a couple of times when he was younger on the Rugby field. Most recently he re broke it when he slipped on a dock and broke his arm badly while filming Last chance to see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.142.102 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"While in the playground of Chesam Prep school, Stephen tripped, fell on his face and broke his nose. He intended on one day getting it fixed, but feared that it wouldn't make much of a difference in his appearance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.145.74 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source would be needed. Rivertorch (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Earliest recorded use of the word "luvvie"?

The OED needs to discover GoogleBooks Advanced Search. Uses in 1857 [21], 1867 [22], 1886 [23], 1908 [24], 1957 [25], 1959 [26], for starters. Need I go on? Now can we please delete this ridiculous misattribution? Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the linked Wiktionary entry, I wonder if it's the first definition that's at issue, not the word itself. If so, that should be clarified. I don't have access to the full OED online, so I have no idea what its entry says. Rivertorch (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but until someone can verify and fix, the sentence should be deleted from the article. Softlavender (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're someone. I won't revert you if you do. :) Rivertorch (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(Delete it, I mean. You can verify and fix it if you're one of the lucky OED subscribers and are feeling übermotivated.) Rivertorch (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh really. The OED are perfectly capable of understanding the use of 'luvvie' as a slang variant of 'love', like 'dear' and 'dearie' or 'sweet' and 'sweetie'. Of course, like those other examples, it is more commonly spelled in a way that reflects the parent word, in this case as 'lovey'. Lovey has had its own entry in the OED for at least a century, with the first recorded usage being in 1733. The OED does not include separate enties on phonetic spellings of words (there's no distinct entry on 'luv', for example, since it's the same word as 'love'). The point is that Fry's is the first recorded usage of the specific term luvvie as a synonym for 'actor‘. That's a completely new usage, with its own quasi-official spelling. I don't think there's any suggestion that he invented the usage, just that his is the first known written example of it. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That was my guess. Have you verified that, then, or is it your guess too? Rivertorch (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the OED definition is: "An actor or actress, esp. one who is considered particularly effusive or affected". It also clearly states that the new meaning evolved from the much older word lovey, meaning "A beloved person, a darling". Paul B (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Pocoyo in subsection Drama

In the Television section, Fry's work in Pocoyo is listed under the subsection Drama, which doesn't fit the series' spirit. Should it be listed in subsection Comedy or in a new subsection?--Javierme (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Cameo in Sherlock Holmes - as photographer

Hello. I would like to make the addition that Stephen has an incredibly brief cameo at the beginning of Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes at the start of the film as the photographer - its all of 3/4 of second, but made me gasp when I did see it. Is this worth making as an addition ? Screencaps are available on Google Image search...your thoughts please.Deepshark (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Any sources? Screen caps don't cut it I'm afraid, they equate to original research. Яehevkor ✉

He has a beard now.

Not something necessarily worth mentioning in the article, but it would be great if we would be able to update the portrait picture --Vera (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Next you'll be requiring a new picture every time he parts his hair differently or buys a new jacket. Too trivial to be concerned with surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.170.237 (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Further Explanation Required

'He is on cordial terms with Prince Charles (despite a mild parody Fry performed in his role of King Charles I in the comedy programme Blackadder: The Cavalier Years), through his work with the Prince's Trust.'

Where is the 'mild parody' in this sketch. I will watch it but on first reading I can't seem to recall a similarity. Please forgive me if I am overlooking an obvious point.

Thanks.

DAFMM (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you can't see that, I don't think anything will help you. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I have watched the sketch, but need to recall as I can't recall the connection. Should have been 're-watch' instead of 'watch'. My apologies. DAFMM (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Suicide attempt

According to here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22782913 ,he made another suicide atempt in 2012. Probably worth putting in. Hammerfrog (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Nightingale House

"Stephen Fry visits Nightingale House, London, December 2009". Link Nightingale House — home in San Francisco. Nightingale House = Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, isn't it? — Андрей Бондарь (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so: [27][28]. I've adjusted the caption accordingly, but I wonder if the NH we're after is notable enough to have its own article. Rivertorch (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Steven Fry filmography

He had played Gordon Wyatt/Gordon Gordon/Noddy Comet in the television series bones. Booth's first psychologist in the series after Booth had shot a clown stereo box on the top of an ice cream truck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.74.179.66 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wagner & Me was 2010, not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.29.234 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cambridge Degree

I had always been under the impression that Stephen Fry was graduated with a First. The two citations in the article mention that his degree is in English Literature but not the honours classification. Ziyingjiang (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

Is Fry now an atheist or an agnostic? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

He's a Humanist (capital H). (Not that that is a religion, but neither is Atheist.) So, None is probably OK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd see that as quite a useful detail for the infobox. In fact, "Beliefs" might be a better category there than "Religion". But I'm very wary of getting into box wars! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite in...., in fact. I suggest None (Humanist) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: Personally, so far as this edit is concerned, I think I prefer Kezzer16's version. But, it should be discussed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No strong view, so I will not revert again. Yes, agree "!humanism is not a religion" and so, strictly speaking, "None" is quite correct. But I think that link and source just gives a fuller picture of Fry in summary form. (In the 2013 documentary already quoted in the article, Fry did seem to find some common ground with committed Christian Bear Grylls about the possibility of finding God in nature). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

But Fry himself has been quite outspoken and clear. So in this case, I would have thought that having "None" was preferable to leaving the field blank and thereby suggesting that he has no views. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Overhaul

I've recently brought up the subject of this article elsewhere and a half dozen or so of us agree that this article is far below par for such an esteemed fellow. It reads like a magazine/blog and it's about time it was rewritten from scratch in a chronologically structured proper encyclopedia article rather than scraps of trivia by topic. Especially given the traffic this gets and news reports mentioning Fry's wikipedia article and that the great man himself pops in here occasionally. He deserves a high quality article in which wikipedia can be proud of when people visit the page. We're all currently busy right now, but I just want anybody who watches this page to know that some of us intend working on a new article in a sandbox within the next few weeks. If there is anything you object to or would like to discuss please do so now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on why the article can't be rebuilt in situ, but whatever works for you. I hope you'll provide a sandbox link so those of us who watch the page can collaborate on revising it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that it needs a complete overhaul which might take some time... It won't be for a few weeks anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

While the article may be deficient, surely it needs to be written by a disinterested party, or at least in the manner of one? A group of people who regard the subject as an “esteemed fellow” sound like a less than ideal place to provide this. Personally I think the article as it stands is far too uncritical of man who is often an insufferable bore, a limited comic, a very limited actor, and whilst quick to judge others, takes great offence at others who judge him (I’m not a fit candidate BTW, I can see that straight off…!). Oh, and wasn’t his film debut as a member of the chorus in “Chariots of Fire”, not as currently listed? 109.154.149.231 (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

The article has been edited to include a very offensive homophobic statement at the beginning of the article. Please remove this ASAP 109.154.197.197 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This has now been rectified. I reported the offender after repeatedly removing their message. Once blocked, the troll returned under a different IP address. The article has now been protected, so only auto-confirmed users can make changes.

Apologies to anyone who had to see such offensive vandalism. Orphan Wiki 18:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Age difference

IMHO the mention of an age difference between any couple is WP:INDISCRIMINATE at best> It is also a WP:POV situation. Thus, it does not belong in this article. MarnetteD|Talk 15:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015

He has also narrated the game The Stanley Parable, as the man who leads the main character Stanley through his office building, to try and discover where his colleagues have gone. 2A00:E60:7000:100:7:0:0:1 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Stephen Fry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130527084102/http://www.channel4.com/programmes/stephen-fry-gadget-man to http://www.channel4.com/programmes/stephen-fry-gadget-man
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150429083829/http://www.qi.com/tv/audience.php to http://www.qi.com/tv/audience.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110917103415/http://www.liquida.com/wachowski-brothers-interview/ to http://www.liquida.com/wachowski-brothers-interview/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105193227/http://simongray.org.uk/common-pursuit-other.html to http://simongray.org.uk/common-pursuit-other.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927085436/http://www.oldvictheatre.com/whatson.php?id=37 to http://www.oldvictheatre.com/whatson.php?id=37
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629021537/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00298007 to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00298007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115023419/http://www.dusa.dundee.ac.uk:80/lip/history/history.htm to http://www.dusa.dundee.ac.uk/lip/history/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110207005725/http://www.standtoreason.org.uk:80/news?id=23 to http://www.standtoreason.org.uk/news?id=23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Voice Recording

The voice recording here sounds absolutely nothing like Stephen Fry! It can't be him, or if it was him it has been altered from his natural voice entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.54.94 (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please delete Stephen Fry reference 162 - Guardian article by psychotherapist Oliver James.

Stephen Fry, referenced Guardian (UK) article, "New Labour's love of money is the root of all our troubles."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/23/comment.politics2

The reference given is verifiable but is not a reliable source as Wikipedia references are required to be; it should therefore be stricken. Fry apparently has a diagnosis from the psychiatrist he currently sees. Fry cannot be Oliver James’s patient or else James would certainly have been struck off by the UK's General Medical Council for talking about Fry’s health publicly, which he has not been. James’s opinion on Fry’s condition is therefore medically irrelevant.

Wikipedia need not include or refer to every single verifiable mention of a topic. If it were to do so, we could not truly call it an "edited" site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feeling uncreative (talk • contribs) 12:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Issue with discussing Fry's mental illness

Martinevans123, I saw you reverted[29] my edit, and the reason you gave was "yes, they are totally connected, the documentary makes this very clear - The Evening Standard is mentioned by name". I assume you're correct, as I cannot check it myself, that the documentary says Fry read reviews in The Evening Standard that night. However, I believe there's no reason to say he read bad reviews before his symptoms began; what is relevant to the article is that the show had to be cancelled, and the reason why it happened i.e. he suffered a serious psychiatric episode and required care. I don't think it's appropriate to say why he felt suicidal, or imply things about his mind and emotions; he did not kill himself, we're not a tabloid press or someone's memoirs, and that information isn't needed to understand some other part of the article.

I also believe it violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP to claim or imply a person's severe psychiatric symptoms were caused by something other than psychiatric illness, even if a documentary makes that claim. I'm not sure the wording used in the documentary, but even if Fry literally says that, documentaries are edited and things are often taken out of context, and since we're dealing with a biography of a living person as well as addressing mental illness, I think it's best to be cautious. The claim goes against mainstream psychiatry, it's contentious, I believe it implies negative and potentially demanding damaging things about the article's subject, and it has no other relevance to the rest of the article, so I do not believe it should be included. For these reasons, I've reverted it. If you disagree, I would appreciate if you would discuss it here before reverting again. Thanks. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You think that "psychiatric illness" occurs in a vacuum, without external trigger events? You're saying Fry was already "mentally ill" when he was doing the play? I think you need to watch that documentary before you can take issue with what I've added. Fry himself and John Lloyd make it clear it was the reviews, particularly that one in the The Standard, described as "the most cruel piece", that tipped Fry "over the edge". And I'm not sure what you mean about "relevance to the rest of the article" - this just helps to explain this particular episode in Fry's life. I'm really not sure how to convince you of what the documentary says without you seeing it. At 31:30 Fry says "I would have killed myself if I didn't have the option of disappearing" - I don't see what could be fairer than a direct quote from Fry himself. The episode is also covered in his Secret Life of a Manic Depressive. So I think you're being over-cautious, for somewhat misguided reasons, and you should reconsider. I appreciate your concern here with regard to matters of health where WP:BLP is an important consideration. But I do not believe what I added is in any way a “BLP violation” to say that the bad reviews precipitated Fry’s crisis of confidence. I have no particularly strong views on what the article should include. So perhaps it would be a good idea to ask any interested editor, who has access to the documentary, to review what I had added. The programme is available in the UK on BBC iPlayer for the next 23 days and the relevant part begins at approx. 29:00. Many thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. I think you meant to say "potentially damaging things"?

I'll post a reply soon. The issue to me is not the source, but it seems like you think it would change my mind, so I'm trying to watch it (at least enough to get the context), and I also want to understand how you came to your perspective. It may be a little while as all my methods for tricking iPlayer no longer work and they won't take my money (for the licence fee). I'm about to make edits elsewhere but will definitely respond once I've seen it. Thanks and yes I meant "damaging", sorry. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If you still object, after seeing the relevant part, I will concur. But ideally I'd like to see other editor's views. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Twitter

Hey Guys, just thought I would alert you to the fact that Stephen Fry has deleted his Twitter. This will have to be updated. Sorry I can't make the edit, I am currently working on another edit when I heard this. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

President of Mind.../controversial comments on abuse victims

Stephen Fry is President of the Mental Health Chartity. In April 2016 he made comments saying victims of abuse should grow up and stop being self-pitying.Link(Coachtripfan (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

I request that we show a padlock on the page because i cant see one. 81.106.30.36 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 19:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

Removal of all categories with the word "JEW" in!!! 81.106.30.36 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Reasons not given for category removal. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 20:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Because he isnt "JEWISH"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.49.239 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, he is, according to the Jewish Halacha. Everybody who was born to a Jewish mother is considered Jewish, no matter how he may define himself.

--88.73.242.208 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Jew Citation

Stephen Fry [@stephenfry] (June 24, 2014). "@JulianStorey @JewishNewsUK Being Jewish is not a matter of religion: I'm a Jew, but don't follow judaism" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10 – via Twitter. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2016-09-11 suggested (help)

Use it how you want, full archive and everything if it ever goes away. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

What is this, a biography or a hagiography? The issue though is not in the information or the content, it is the tone in which is written which gives the impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.16.172 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Marriage Tweet Citation

Stephen Fry [@stephenfry] (January 17, 2015). "Gosh. @ElliottGSpencer and I go into a room as two people, sign a book and leave as one. Amazing" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 2016-11-22. Retrieved 2016-11-22 – via Twitter.

Dropping this for future use too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Dailymail and other citations removed

I do not think that the citations given are poor, and in one case the reference is directly to the quotation given in the cited part. I also don't think any of it's controversial. Further, the part about his marriage is factual, and should not be removed. edit referenced Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Firmly in the realm of WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You could have said that at first instead of the inaccurate "trim unref". clpo13_(talk) 19:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@John: I don't believe it is, hence why I asked for a discussion here. Could you explain your reasoning? Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Which part of the policy are you struggling with? There's little to explain or discuss. Wikipedia's longstanding policy is not to carry unreferenced material on living or recently dead subjects. Tabloid journalism like the Mail doesn't count as a reference, so my edit summary was entirely accurate. --John (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@John: I disagree, especially since one of the referenced items you deleted is actually the Daily Mail itself. Are you saying the information you removed is nonfactual or just that you don't like the Daily Mail and YouTube? Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to what John says, the Daily Mail is a reference, though it's a very poor one and almost always if not completely unsuitable for biographies of living people. It has a history of sensationalizing or outright fabricating stories, so it's something to avoid. If something the Mail says is true, it can almost certainly be found in a more reputable source. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:PUS for some more info. You can also look through past discussions about the Mail on the reliable sources noticeboard: [30]. A couple of good discussions: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210#Daily Mail and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Reliability of the Daily Mail. clpo13_(talk) 19:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To continue on from this and to further justify my partial revert, the Daily Mail is fine as a reference to itself (so long as it's not overly self-serving; WP:ABOUTSELF). In this case, the only use is to say that someone writing for the Mail said something. There may be something to discuss about whether the Mail-Fry spat should be included at all, but sourcing isn't the issue. clpo13_(talk) 19:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

Should it be mentioned that his husband is 30 years younger than he is Aacfsftw (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok Aacfsftw (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Stephen Fry. 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/20091117154947/http://www.stephenfry.com/2009/11/14/twillionth/ to http://www.stephenfry.com/2009/11/14/twillionth/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824002514/http://www.aoc.co.uk/en/aoc_beacon_gold_and_other_awards/aoc_beacon_gold_awards/aoc_gold_awards/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-2004.cfm to http://www.aoc.co.uk/en/aoc_beacon_gold_and_other_awards/aoc_beacon_gold_awards/aoc_gold_awards/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-2004.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211141802/http://www.videojug.com/interview/stephen-fry-the-internet to http://www.videojug.com/interview/stephen-fry-the-internet
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810124308/http://stephen-fry-me.tumblr.com/post/57612770175/open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc to http://stephen-fry-me.tumblr.com/post/57612770175/open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130812055755/http://stephen-fry-me.tumblr.com/post/57805910021/the-daily-mail-and-lord-dacre-appeasing-again to http://stephen-fry-me.tumblr.com/post/57805910021/the-daily-mail-and-lord-dacre-appeasing-again
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009105313/http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/fryaposs%2Bfears%2Bover%2Btoriesapos%2Bantigay%2Blinks/3374297 to http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/fryaposs%2Bfears%2Bover%2Btoriesapos%2Bantigay%2Blinks/3374297
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206235654/http://www.stephenfry.com/misc/about-us to http://www.stephenfry.com/misc/about-us/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Need for balance?

Since there is a section ' Acclaim', shouldn't there also be a section 'Criticism'? If the author(s) of this article know nothing negative about Fry, they haven't been reading very widely. 31.48.245.26 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

To answer your specific question: no, not necessarily, and implicitly casting aspersions on the article's subject instead of making specific suggestions for improving the article itself is not a very helpful approach. However, I think that "Acclaim" isn't a terrific section title; it's vague and sounds a bit peacocky. I've changed it to "Honours", which is more simply descriptive. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stephen Fry. 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/20080725062633/http://www.cawstonparish.info/Web%20Sites%20%26%20Books%20About%20Cawston.htm to http://www.cawstonparish.info/Web%20Sites%20%26%20Books%20About%20Cawston.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104114313/http://www.shakespearebroadway.com/tickets.php to http://shakespearebroadway.com/tickets.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3173855
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129161552/http://cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/honouring-excellence.html to http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/honouring-excellence.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919021441/http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/neuroscience/patron/ to http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/neuroscience/patron/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 05:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Fry. 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/20110717044937/http://www.thinknoevil.com/latin_review.htm to http://www.thinknoevil.com/latin_review.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ueastudent.com/image_uploads/lgbt--student-experience-repor.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ueastudent.com/image_uploads/council-minutes-18-oct-final-.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 03:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Audiobooks

Not sure of the status of audio books in a biblio - obviously the English DElight stuff is his own creative work, and therfoire belongs in a biblio, but he was merely presenting the Chekov stories CD. Happy to be corrected on this, but shouldn't audio books have their own section in a biblio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledays (talk • contribs) 10:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am currently listening to a Random House Audio edition of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that is narrated by Stephen Fry. The book details say it was released 9-4-06. I don't know how to properly notate and cite this, so I will let someone else add it to the actual Wiki page. It does appear that this is the only book of the series he narrated, or at least the only that I can find on the library I have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.112.1 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Too much use of Fry's autobiograhies in this article

I've just done a read through of the article and have noticed that it relies far too much on Fry's own description of his life from his autobiographies (and far too much trivia is quoted from them). It's important that we observe WP:PRIMARY. Oska (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think what counts as "trivia" is somewhat subjective - see the thread above. Have you looked for secondary sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The Times crossword

Re this deletion for a second time, by User:Oska, I don't see a problem with its inclusion. The first edit summary was "Removed trivia about crosswords", to which my reply was "(if Fry himself "... later stated that these crosswords were the only thing that got him through the ordeal", how can that be trivia?" The second edit summary was "Please see WP:PRIMARY. We should not be relying so much on Fry's autobiographies in this article and this particular anecdote could be perceived as an attempt to win sympathy by Fry for his time in prison." So which is it? I really don't see that this is "as an attempt to win sympathy by Fry." Please also see WP:BRD Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Just seen your comment here after opening my own section below it. You may not see it as an attempt to win sympathy, others might. The main point is that it is unreliable as a self-reported subjective experience and not fit for a biographical article. Oska (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that "self-reported subjective experiences", such as those reported in an autobiography, are necessarily "not fit for a biographical article." These are the sorts of personal recollections and views that can never be corroborated. I guess it might help to use quotation marks. But the best improvement in sourcing one could hope for would be a mention an interview or even in a review of the autobiography itself. I still don't see this snippet as problematic. Nor do I see it as "trivia". I'd be keen to hear views, though, from other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggested Humour line

As Stephen has said, he likes Wikipedia "because I like to find out that I died, and that I'm currently in a ballet in China, and all the other very accurate and important things that Wikipedia brings us all." Surely this behooves a subsection within the "Personal Life" section (before "Sexuality") entitled "Prior to Stephen's Demise" containing "Stephen is, of course, dead and recovering from Prostate Cancer" or similar.

ATurtle05 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting he's inclined to make light of what he considers doubtful accuracy of statements when certain things he's said- e.g. regarding his alleged relationship to C. B. Fry- aren't borne out on an extensive examination of the facts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.120.87 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The article currently states: "Fry has stated that he is related to former England cricketer C. B. Fry", with a source. This seems to be valid. Do you think the accuracy of his claim should be challenged in the article (perhaps in a footnote)? If so, do you have any counter source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I agree that the statement is true in that Fry did make the claim, and the source is a valid one, meaning the inclusion of the statement is also valid and can't really be disputed; I however firmly believe this is an illustration of the way in which an alleged fact can be put forward (either consciously by Fry, or because it's a 'family tradition', or a genealogist misled him, etc etc) and taken as truth despite evidence to the contrary (it's worth noting that, as far as I can recall- having read all of them- the relationship with C. B. Fry is not mentioned in any of Stephen Fry's autobiographical writings, certainly not 'Moab is my Washpot', which deals with his family and early years, which I checked).

Warning: for anyone who doesn't care at all about this, the following will be over-the-top, I acknowledge, but it represents the facts as I have come to apprehend them. The problem arises in the fact that Stephen Fry's family were treated in volume 20 of 'The Visitation of England and Wales', p. 41-44, 'Fry of Finchley, co. Middlesex', which goes as far as his grandfather, John William Fry, who as identified in Stephen Fry's episode of 'Who Do You Think You Are' was shown to have married Florence Ella Constance Dunthorne Pring (the order of her names varied throughout her life; her death in 1955 was recorded as 'Ella F. C. D. Fry'). The Visitation gives John William Fry's year of birth as 1894; the 1961 probate record for John William Fry, of Sherwood House, Chesham, Bucks. [death record John W. Fry 1894-1961] shows his executor to be 'Alan John Fry, physicist', Stephen Fry's father. Per 'Moab is my Washpot', Stephen Fry was initially raised and educated at Chesham. The programme does however not explore the Fry side past this point, focusing more on Florence Pring's ancestry, then Stephen Fry's mother's family.

There is no corroboration for his claim of a relationship with C. B. Fry in any published source, and a great deal of evidence against it, but which can't be brought into play as it constitutes synthesis and original research, which is why I thought a note on the talk page would be worthwhile. By 'extensive examination of the facts' in my previous comment, I mean my own research and that of others into the Frys of Shillingston (sic) and Blandford, Dorset (from whom, per The Visitation of England and Wales vol. 20, the Finchley family descend, borne out by BMD and other records) and the (Burgess) Fry family, who were from Sussex, as detailed at considerable length by Iain Wilton in 'C. B. Fry: King of Sport' (originally published as 'C. B. Fry: An English Hero' in 1999). Wilton refers to Fry's autobiography, 'Life Worth Living', wherein, per Wilton: '... his Sussex ancestry could be traced back to the Norman Conquest...' 'the family moved only a short distance from Hastings, settling in and around Mayfield and Rotherfield in east Sussex. By intermarrying with a long-established local family, the Burgesses, the Frys gradually became major land-owners and prominent members of the gentry.' They were involved in farming and were also millers. Wilton then details the Fry family's sixteenth-century wealth and status exemplified by 'the construction of private pews in St Denys's Church in Rotherfield'. It seems that the earliest ancestor of this family traced thus far is Alexander Fry, who married in 1669, at Heathfield, Sussex, Frances Ellis. This wouldn't necessarily be fatal to Stephen Fry's claim by any means, were it not for the fact that his ancestral line traces directly to Hugh Fry, of Beermarsh, Shillingston(e), Dorset (he being father of Thomas who d. before 1654, indicating Hugh's approximate time period); the two Fry lines therefore appear to be entirely separate. It's by no means impossible that they share a common ancestor (although there is no proof of this anywhere), but given Stephen Fry's ancestry has been traced back 14 generations, and C. B. Fry's 13 generations, with no link between the two families at all, this bears noting.

Of course what it boils down to is that no-one ought to have to take my word for it, but even the baldest assessment of the published sources- viz. Wilton's account of the Sussex Frys having been resident there since at least the 1600s, and the Visitation of England and Wales stating Stephen Fry's 3x great-grandfather Samuel Fry (1781-1861), of Newington Butts, Surrey, to be '2nd son of James Fry, of Shillingston (sic) and Blandford, both co. Dorset'- clearly fails to provide any link between the two families, which ought to be considered in light of Stephen Fry's claim, to my mind. I don't doubt that to many this is a minor issue being blown out of proportion, but the way Stephen Fry made the claim (and the authority such a statement carries, made on national television) seemed to indicate a far closer degree of relationship than that which, on the evidence, could possibly exist, which is why I think a note such as this here on the talk page is not devoid of value, should anyone be interested in the specifics. If possible (albeit I acknowledge unlikely) I think a footnote might be worthwhile of a similar sort to this: 'The Fry family from which Stephen Fry descends were of Shillingstone and Blandford, Dorset, since at least the mid-1700s; [source here] C. B. Fry was of a family resident at Mayfield and Rotherfield, Sussex, since at least the late 1600s. [source here] Any relationship between the two would therefore be a very distant one.' I acknowledge this seems pedantic, but I always feel wary of the fact that ANYTHING can be taken as truth by virtue of being printed in a book- or in this case stated on television; unless a claim stands up to scrutiny I feel that, if possible, some note ought to be taken of its doubtful veracity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.120.87 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... there seems to be a pattern developing here. In his third volume of autobiography Stephen Fry claims to be related to Cosmo Fry, whose father was inventor Jeremy Fry, who has his own Wikipedia article, where it's made absolutely clear and comprehensively sourced that they're from the Bristol Quaker Fry family, chocolatiers. Which, in line with the above, is a distinct line of descent from that to which Stephen Fry belongs, given that, per his Wikipedia article, Joseph Fry (1728-1787), founder of the Bristol family, was son of John Fry, of Sutton Benger, Wiltshire. Maybe Stephen Fry just has a taste for claiming kinship with distinguished individuals of shared surname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBWhitney12 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Now the article claims the regicide John Fry as an ancestor, which a look at Stephen Fry's direct ancestral line as mentioned above disproves; John Fry lived from 1609-1657, but Stephen Fry's ancestors (starting with the earliest on record) from the 1500s to the 1700s, were a Hugh, a Thomas, another Hugh, a Richard, Hugh, and William, all of Shillingstone, then on through their descendants. Given John Fry's apparent Dorset origins there may however be some link, even if certainly not a direct ancestral one. Additionally, the cited source for relationship to the Fry chocolate family states: 'his father's brother George even penned a book, The Saxon Origins of the Fry Family, refuting claims from the chocolate-making Quaker Fry line that their roots were Norman'. It's worth observing that this statement doesn't indicate clearly whether George Fry himself directly addressed the Quaker Fry family's claims of Norman origin, or if the author of this book, aware that the Quaker Fry family claimed Norman descent, simply arrived at this conclusion himself; either way, the Quaker Frys are, according to literally any source, a different family from that of Shillingstone and Blandford, and given the unclear nature of the aforementioned statement it doesn't warrant inclusion. The book, 'Soupy Twists' by the 'officially authorised biography' of Fry and Laurie, would of necessity rely heavily upon information provided by the two men in question; as it is, the original source of the link to John Fry and the Quaker Frys is Stephen Fry's autobiography 'Moab is my washpot': 'My father's family name of Fry was as old English as could be, steeped in Quakerism as far back as the founding of the movement. John Fry, a Parliamentarian ancestor, signed King Charles the First's death warrant. My Great Uncle George [n.b.- this is at odds with the cited source, which claims Fry's father's brother was the author- at any rate, Genealogies in the Library of Congress, A Bibliography, vol. I, produced by the Library of Congress itself, gives: 'The Saxon origin of the Fry families by George Samuel Fry, C.B.E., of the Fry family of Shillingstone, Dorset (C. Rogers & Co., Ltd, Dorset printing works, 1928)' So George Fry himself clearly knew of the origins of his own Fry family, and presumably the book contains an account thereof matching or corroborating that from the Visitation of England and Wales as mentioned several times above, which, again, establishes that family's distinct origins from the other Frys to whom Stephen Fry has claimed relationship] wrote a book called The Saxon Origins of the Fry Family as a counterblast to those heretical relations (the chocolate making swine from Bristol) who believed that they originated from the town of Fry in Normandy'. Unfortunately just because Fry said these things doesn't mean they're true (and certainly not when all the evidence, printed in a reliable genealogical work produced laboriously over many years, says otherwise); family traditions are often accepted unthinkingly by people, and whether this is the case with Stephen Fry or he's just conjuring up these connections for self-aggrandisement or because it's an entertaining story isn't clear, but aside from his own writings nothing whatsoever can be found to establish a link between any of these Fry families. C. B. Fry was of a distinct line from the Bristol Quaker Frys, and Stephen Fry's own line itself distinct again, based on all available genealogical evidence. Several posts above attest to the inaccuracy of Fry's claims regarding his ancestry. The unfortunate truth of the matter would appear to be that, despite proclaiming himself 'just another ruddy peasant' in the course of his Who Do You Think You Are? project, Stephen Fry has an insatiable desire to link himself to virtually every single distinguished Fry family or individual, even when the most up-to-date research (as well as 'original research' undertaken in efforts to corroborate his claims) is unable to establish any link whatsoever between them, as several comments above indicate. By this point, a statement to the effect that 'Fry has claimed relationship with the sportsman C. B. Fry, the Quaker Fry family of Bristol chocolate-makers, and the regicide John Fry' would surely be the most suitable for inclusion. RBWhitney12 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Fry's taxi

The article currently claims that the FX4 taxi used by SF to get around London at the time was shipped to the US for his 2008 American road trip series. The supporting ref is rather weak, and it seems unlikely. Besides, I'm sure the FX4 featured in the show was left hand drive. FX4s are made in LHD for some markets, though they aren't common in the US. Can anybody clarify? --Ef80 (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

On rereading the text, it's described as the 'same vehicle', which is somewhat ambiguous, but there's a clear implication there. --Ef80 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are Fry’s ‘views’ under ‘personal life’?

It seems most Wiki articles usually provide an area for “views” separate from personal life. This article has Fry’s views on a range of issues tucked into personal life when they very likely do not belong there? Sxologist (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Minor edits

"Chesham Preparatry School" should read "Chesham Preparatory School". "Pucklechurch Prison" was "Pucklechurch Remand Centre", which opened in 1968 and closed after a riot in 1990. On the same site HM Prison Ashfield opened in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halteres (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing book in Stephen Fry's bibliography

Stephen Fry wrote a book that is missing from this article: Title: Paperweight, Publisher: William Heinemann Ltd (September 14, 1992), ISBN-10: 0434274089, ISBN-13: 978-0434274086 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GilleadFinknottle (talk • contribs) 09:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Honours

Has he never been offered an OBE or similar? 213.31.95.78 (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd bet my bottom dollar that he has been offered a knighthood and turned it down. It's generally considered 'not good form' to announce that you'e turned down an honour, as it can appear as if you both want everyone to know that you were worthy of such an honour, but also are too humble to accept it. LastDodo (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Or too radical to accept it? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. With Fry it could be either.LastDodo (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous hagiography

Wow, the man received a Covid jab. How utterly utterly world-shatteringly important. Anything about his prison sentence? Anything about his rabid objection 'as-a-Jew' to Israel daring to defend itself against rockets murdering her civilians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Childhood Episode removed

I have removed an episode I will not describe here since that would defeat the purpose. The edit is not a major one but is obvious at the article edit history and might count as a bold edit all the same. I can find only snippets of discussion about the issue of 'spent' offences in Europe and so use the justification here with full respect to anyone who might disagree. In Europe and other parts of the world, people who have committed offences are given the chance to start anew once time has passed and a number of criteria have been satisfied (this does not apply to the most serious offences). There are strict laws in place which prevent the reporting of the offences in question in most cases. The media may refer to it if the offence is relevant to a story (e.g. a person is re-convicted of an offence). These rules clearly apply to the edit I have made here. However, it is true that in the main US rules apply to Wikipedia. Yet it does seem that the best course is for commonsense to apply - i.e. where a person clearly resides in Europe and is European then Europea rules on spent offences should be followed. Finally, if a European (where 'spent' offences is the law) inserts information into a Wikipedia article which is covered by spent offence legislation, they are usually committing an offence in their own counrty. This opens Wiki edits up to some degree of risk about which they are likely unaware. My own view is that the unecessary information is best removed and so I have deleted. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 08:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the eighteenth century Enlightenment ever made it to England, from where as far as I know Fry comes, and for all I know still lives (among those of us who think that Norfolk counts). It certainly resonated powerfully in Scotland. But of course you are 100% correct in your action here on grounds of simple kindness. Wikepedia contributors are (in most cases) members of the human race in the first instance and wikipedia contributors only in the second or beyond. Humanity should trump prurience. Clearly if the incident in question was of profound importance in terms of why people are interested in SF, or simply in terms of making him "notable", then there is a case to be made for retaining it. But this guy is a popular actor, entertainer and author. That's why we've heard of him. That's why we're interested! Be well Charles01 (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Has it escaped your notice that Fry himself chose to describe these events and had them published in his bestselling autobiography? William Avery (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I could understand this concern if it was something he didn't disclose willingly - but as he has, I see no reason why it can't be included in the article (worth noting that it isn't just his autobiography that he relayed these details - there are numerous interviews and the like where he discloses this freely). QueenofBithynia (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@William Avery @Charles01 @QueenofBithynia Thanks for this, all. I did not know he had recounted his old convictions himself in one of his memoirs. That's a perfectly fair point and I agree that this probably excludes the exclusion from this Wikipedia article, as it were. I guess his own references to the conviction might be appropriate citations. I particularly appreciate that there seems to be a general view that people are entitled to a clean slate. I'll keep aware of these subtleties of the spent-offences issue if I come across it again at other articles. Good stuff all round and thanks all for your help. All the best, Emmentalist

Drug Use

In Fry's third autobiography, "More Fool Me: A Memoir", he talks at length about his cocaine addiction which lasted for many years (from 1986 to 2001); it is surprising this isn't mentioned at all in this article. Mattmm (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Little Big planet

He was the narrator for the og little big planet 2A00:23C5:68A4:3101:9FD:AA35:10B7:A3FF (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It's LittleBigPlanet and it's mentioned in the article. DonIago (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)