Talk:John Cleese

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

In the 21st century section, paragraph 3, please add a {{citation needed}} tag after the following: Template:Tq -- I cannot find evidence that such a thing exists. Or, add citation if it does.

Thanks, 107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleted the sentence. It didn't add much, if anything, to the article. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

The google synopsis for this page does not include the fact he was in monthly python. The synopsis for all other members of monty python does include this information. Please update Cleese’s bio/synopsis so this information would be included on the google search Wikipedia synopsis 2A02:C7F:F4B9:E000:2596:83ED:1437:D65F (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:X mark.svg Not done: This is also a can't do, because Wikipedia has no control over how articles appear in search engine results, which are on external websites. Here is a screenshot of how it currently appears on Google. What seems to have happened is that they have used the opening paragraph, but chopped it off before it gets to the part about Monty Python.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Smoking cessation edits

An edit has been made to this section changing the.positive effects of the campaign from "half again" to "half". In numeric terms this is changing fron 150% to 50% implying that the cessation advertisements had a negative rather than positive affect. Whilst this might be comically amusing it's not true.

I have reviewed the link cited and it states that there is an overall positive benefit from the adverts.

Please review and correct, or point out that I'm wrong, as i believe it reflects poorly on JC 80.229.39.99 (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Part of post-1990 SDP?

Is there any sources of him actually being a member of the modern Social Democratic Party? Source shows him speaking at one of the events, but doesn't prove he's a member of said party. Edwint512 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

In the last line of the Politics & Activism subsection, about his anti-smoking campaign:

Change: "The study found that smokers in regions where the PSAs were broadcast were about half again as likely to have quit at the 18-month follow-up point as those who did not see them, irrespective of the local anti-tobacco campaign."

To: "The impact on quitting among smokers after 18 months was not statistically significant. However, the study did find a significant impact on relapse avoidance of ex-smokers. Ex-smokers who did not see the PSA were more than twice as likely to relapse than those who were in the PSA broadcast regions."

Justification: It is erroneously claimed that the conclusion of the referenced study was that smokers in the PSA test group were 50% more likely to quit than those in the control group. The study was not making that claim about quitting among smokers, rather the claim was about the pooled effects on non-smoking among smokers and ex-smokers.

For context, the study interviewed smokers and ex-smokers, and found the pooled adjusted odds ratio on the non -smoking effect was 1.53 (which includes both those who quit and those who avoided relapsing). The impact on relapse avoidance on ex-smokers was actually the only significant result before pooling (2.21 odds ratio, p value = 0.025), as the impact on quitting among smokers was not statistically significant (1.27 odds ratio, p value = 0.35), thus making the claim in the article false.

You could also essentially quote the study directly - "The effect of the PSA was estimated to have increased the odds of not smoking by 53%, although the confidence interval was wide" - that's nearly direct quote from the results section of the study."

Thanks.

Here is source for the PDF of the actual study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1748378/pdf/v009p00273.pdf Whiskeypuck (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done. I blockquoted selected bits from the abstract that I thought gave a better sense of the TV campaign's effects, and would be less subject to misinterpretation by lay readers: Template:Tq

Feel free to ping me with any objections or additional suggestions. Xan747 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Another Missing Book …

Tired of trying to jump through Wikipedia’s hoops, so here’ s the info. , someone else can take the glory. Written by John Cleese as “Muriel Volestrangler” ( He’s pictured on the cover in drag, as a military person, holding a royal orb.)

”The Golden Skits of Wing Commander Muriel Volestrangler, FRHS & BAR” 1984, Methuen,London ISBN:9780413567901 (Hardback) 75.106.32.81 (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• File:Yes check.svg Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  👍 75.106.32.81 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

Change 'In 2021, Cleese cancelled an appearance at Cambridge University after learning that art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon had been blacklisted by the student union for impersonating Adolf Hitler. His visit to the university was intended to be part of a documentary on wokeism.'

to

In 2021, Cleese cancelled an appearance at The Cambridge Union Society after learning that art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon had been blacklisted by the union for impersonating Adolf Hitler. His visit to the university was intended to be part of a documentary on wokeism.

Reason: he wasn't visiting Cambridge University, just the Cambridge Union which is an independent society and charity. He was also not blacklisted by the Student Union (Cambridge SU) - he was blacklisted by the Cambridge Union, which is correctly linked. Savandwich (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• File:Yes check.svg Done: The ban on Andrew Graham-Dixon was imposed by the Cambridge Union Society and nobody else.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

New infobox image

I'm not sure the new infobox image adds anything to the article. If anything I think it detracts from it, as you can no longer see Cleese's full face. Mac Edmunds (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a high-quality image that gives a very good impression of his looks and also shows him in public presentation mode. That's not to say that another image might be better. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this image is probably a better representation... John Cleese Photo Op GalaxyCon San Jose 2024.jpg Mac Edmunds (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is. Perhaps it's not quite so appealing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)