Talk:John Le Mesurier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

There's no mention of De Somerys on his birth certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.29.0 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

De Somerys is NOT part of his name. Check the records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.219.209 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

French

Does anyone know how close his French connection was? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

His mother was from the Channel Islands. So about 30 km. AuntFlo (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

His mother was born in Bedford. As was her father.But her side of the family did originate from France via Guernsey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.16.149 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Extra strong cigs?

I have read that he was known to smoke "extra strong" smokes (dope?) does anyone know anything further in this regard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.23.98 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He tried cannibis when he was told not to drink alcohol, but didn't care much for it and eventually returned to beer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.16.149 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Has somebody got a bigger picture for the infobox? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Television appearances

John was also in a television programme named "George and the Dragon". A clip is available on Youtube with a heading of: Christmas with George & The Dragon ATV 1966 Sid James Peggy Mount John Le Mesurier

A more computer literate person than I might wish to add it to John's page. 121.73.182.58 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gambling?

I understood he had a heavy gambling addiction, family virtually left with no money? Borrowing money on his salary before films completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.98.27 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Marriage to Joan

The article gives 1965 as the year of his marriage to Joan. But the Joan_Le_Mesurier article has it as 1966. Neither has any source cited. Which is it? Twistlethrop (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is wrong they were married at Fulham town hall on Wednesday 2nd March 1966, I'll amend it. Wilfridselsey (talk)

Infobox

The infobox for the article is rather bloated: would anyone mind if I heavily trimmed it down or even removed it? I and another editor, Cassianto are looking at giving the article a full re-write in the coming weeks, so we hope that by the time it is finished it'll look a lot different than it does at the moment. Once we're in a better position to make suggestions, we'll post structure on here for people to comment on, advise or alter: we hope that we'll be able to use that as a framework for the future development of the article. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To add my two pennies worth, I would like to see the info box go completely. However, not wishing to fuel another fire around this subject, might I suggest removing the "military section" and "spouses". JLM was not known for his military career so it seems pretty redundent having it there. Hs wives are also non important IMO, with him being married to only one notable actress. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but don't want to this one into another battleground. I would personally prefer it though to just work on the article in the mainspace.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we're in agreement, with no-one pushing back on us at the moment. I'm going to heavily trim and see if anyone objects: I also hope it won't turn into another fight—had too many of those recently! - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gents, no complaints my end. Shall we say no more about this then for the fear of indirectly starting something. SchroCat, sorry I think mistakenly lost 5,000 bytes somewhere when I moved it all over into the main space. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem: I'd ripped out the film list and dropped in the link to the new page, John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

phew! -- Cassianto^Talk 17:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Great job! I did fill in about 3 or 4 red links, I'll start the other three films later perhaps.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What I'm doing is the "bulking" of a lot of his films and stage work to provide a sort of building frame. Then rather than just reeling off film after film we can look for reviews and useful production info which might concern him so it reads better. I have missed out a few films but tried to be generally very comprehensive with coverage like the Sellers article. But its impossible to cover 13 films in one year! Will work on the 60s later. The sources can be sorted out into the bibliography and the titles capitalized at a later date. I don't know if either of you have a biography or two of him but it would be extremely useful here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've got the Graham McCann biog, which I'm working through now (it's where all the new additions in the Early Life section have come from). I'm still reading throught the theatre work he did, so I'll start filling in a few bits and pieces as they come up. The John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record page has all his film and theatre work listed on it in chronological order, so it'll be a useful guide going forward. I'll get round to sorting out the radio and TV stuff at some point too.

I've got a request in at my local library for his autobiography, which I'll use to add some good quotes and comments.Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, yes with those we ought to be able to built a well-balanced informative article. OK I'm done for now, will expand 60s tomorrow most likely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll add in a few bits around his early theatre work. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll add to his post WWII theatre work tomorrow. Feel free to format some of my book sources into sfn notes and place in bibliography, I was using the automated ref making tool which often has lower casing for titles and includes date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Anything I can do? -- Cassianto^Talk 09:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Le Mesurier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to working with you again Pyrotec! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (both of you). Realistically, not a lot is going to happen here today, I'm going to quietly read through the nomination tonight, and I got another review under way, but we should have some progress tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now done a quick read of the article and in general it appears to be about or about GA-level, but I do have a few concerns about what is being claimed and what evidence is being used to support those claims they are inconsistent in parts.

• Biography -
  • Early life -

• Its claimed that Le Mesurier was born at 35 Chaucer Road, Bedford, Bedfordshire in 1912.[1]. Well that information might be found on a birth certificate but ref 1 is not a reference to birth certificate, its an incomplete GRO index reference. The full index reference is: Births, June 1912, Bedford, Volume 3b, page 519 and all that states is: that the child was indexed as John E Le M Halliley (note only the first Christian name is given in full, subsequent names are written as first letter only) and the mother's surname prior to marriage was Le Mesurier. The index record can be found on freeBMD here.
• The next claim is: His parents were Charles Elton Halliley,[2]. Ref 2 is given as volume 3b, p. 305, but no year (well 1837–1915) and no quarter are given in the citation. I assume that the citation is for the birth of the father Charles Elton Halliley which is listed in September 1881, viewable on freeBMD here, that index does not confirm that Charles Elton Halliley is the father, merely that a birth of that child was registered in Bedford in Q3 of 1881 (but the reference does not cite 1881 nor Q3).
• Note since ref 1 gives the mother's (pre-marrriage) surname as Le Mesurier and the father's name was Halliley, I would look more kindly on a Bedford marriage between a (female) Le Mesurier and a (male) Halliley - such a search could be done on freeBMD. The result is:

Marriages Dec 1906

HALLILEY Charles Elton Bedford 3b 683

Le Mesurier Amy Michelle Bedford 3b 683

READ Walter Bedford 3b 683

WHEATLEY Jane Mahala P Bedford 3b 683

...stopping for now. Will be continued on Wednesday. Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pyrotec: I've altered the refs to other availble sources, for clarity. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pyrotec, I physically have the copies of the certificates at home and have formatted the citations based around where I have found them. Is it their use which is a problem, or is it more to do with the fact there is a missing link between birth name and stage name, and father verses son etc? -- Cassianto^Talk 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The certificates may held at home, and it has been stated that they are, however those certificates were not listed as citations (or cited as references - the same thing). The citations being used were the GRO birth indices and if you check the web links I've given above, particularly the images that are viewable by clicking on the "view original" link, the information claimed was not verifiable. Citing, e.g. Births, June 1912, Bedford, Volume 3b, page 519, only provides the information that the birth of a child named as John E Le M Halliley, whose mother was formally Le Mesurier, was registered in Bedford Registration District between Apr and June 1912. I'm happy for information from the birth certificates to be used, but it should be clearly stated in the references that the birth certificate is the citation (not the GRO indices). There are only two ways of getting a birth certificate, technically known as a Certified Copy of an Entry .... (the words after "entry" differ depending on who supplied the copy) either from the General Register Office or from the Local Registrar. (It does not necessarily have to be a Birth Certificate, if the Baptism entry is held it has most of the information, but not the mother's unmarried name and (mostly) not the birth date). Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Career -
    • 1934–46 -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC) - I understand it, and it makes some kind of sense: At this juncture in his career he was still billed as "John Halliley"[15] and he made his stage debut in September 1934 at the Palladium Theatre in Edinburgh in the J. B. Priestley play Dangerous Corner, along with three other newcomers to the company.[16] The reviewer for The Scotsman thought that Le Mesurier was "well cast"...., but it would read better if the first sentence had a minor edit: there is one "his" and a "he" before the name of "his"/"he" is given. It also states still billed as, well the second paragraph of Early life does mention plays that "he" was in, but it did not state that he was named as "John Halliley" (Le Mesurier seems to be implied). Note: "his" name and the change of name is fully explained in the second paragraph of 1934–46 (the one following this one), perhaps the still billed as could be removed from the first paragraph, or relocated elsewhere, as it does not add to the clarity of the article?

• I have copy edited it slightly and now reads "At this juncture, Le Mesurier appeared as "John Halliley" and made his stage debut in September 1934 at the Palladium Theatre in Edinburgh in the J. B. Priestley play Dangerous Corner, along with three other newcomers to the company. The reviewer for The Scotsman thought that Le Mesurier was "well cast". -- Cassianto^Talk 08:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that works. Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • 1946–59 -

• Looks OK.

• • • 1960–68 -

...stopping for now. Will be continued, later. Pyrotec (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• • • 1968–77 & 1977–83 -

• These two subsections look OK.

• • • Personal life -

• Looks OK.

• Approach to acting, Portrayals & Filmography and other works -

• These three sections look OK.

• WP:Lead -

• Compliant.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting and informative biography of John Le Mesurier, a well known actor.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm delighted to be able to award this article GA-status. It was a "strong" candidate at WP:GAN and I suspect that it has the potential of making WP:FAC, but I would suggest WP:PR as a next step so as to gain a wider view on its potential as a FA. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Pyrotec and great news—your efforts here are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic news. A great review as always Pyrotec! -- Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Good job folks. Shame Tim isn't still here though. Yes I intend making improvements to this over the next few weeks as I've sure Schro and Cass do and we intend taking it to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope FAC goes well. I certainly believe that this article has the potential of making FA. Pyrotec (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting

I have completed my copyediting of the article. I am not particularly happy with what I have achieved. A great deal of the article is taken up with the listing of each and every one of Le Mesurier's appearances on stage, screen, TV and radio, with accompanying details of co-stars, directors etc. This naturally leads to highly repetitive prose which, after a while, makes pretty stupefying reading. A few critical comments are inserted here and there, but the effect of these is lost in the avalanche of surrounding detail, and few of the quoted critics have anything analytical to say.

I wonder why so much detail is necessary, when there is in existence an article: John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record which lists his performances. With that article in place as a source of reference, why can't this biographical article give a broader and more general account of his acting career? At the moment, quite honestly, Le Mesurier the man is lost in the verbiage; one can discern that here was a talented and interesting actor hampered by personal weaknesses that damaged his personal life, but it is hard going. I believe that the editors concerned with the development of this article need to have a good, hard think about how much of the present detail really needs to be retained.

A few minor quibbles:

• Use of "opposite": I have always thought that this term is used relation in relation to star actors in major roles, e.g Kenneth Branagh appears "opposite" Emma Thompson in Much Ado, etc. You use the term in relation to some of Le Mesurier's quite minor roles, which does not seem appropriate.
• "Noted": I have knocked most of these out, but the word has been somewhat overused and is rarely the best choice.
• Why is it necessary to give the names and dobs of Jacques's children who as far as I know are not notable?

Having said that, the best of luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The detail of his performances were added with the intention of finding further information to support them. However, unlike the Peter Sellers, there isn't much, if any info, critically discussing a lot of his roles so in parts the article still reads as a recital of his filmography. Because the meat can't be added to the bones then in a lot of cases I agree perhaps best to evade even mentioning the role. Me I like articles to be as comprehensive as possible covering most of his roles and as biographically sound as possible without being difficult to read, but in this case I agree to cut down on coverage of his lesser films and plays which don't have critical coverage.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ditto from me. A reason, I suspect, for the lack of details was because JLM was not a main player like Sellers and was a self-confessed "jobbing actor", who treated his stage and screen career as more of a 9-5 office job, than something extraordinary. Dr. B is right to recognise the difficulty in finding the JLM meat, and I support the decision to condense. SchroCat, what's your view? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we're all in general agreement with Brian's edits and comments. We must try to find critical coverage or interesting information about more of his roles, if not, I say we remove most of them or briefly mention a minor film and not his costars if it isn't that notable. Above all we want the article to read as a biography, not a filmography recital. But I'm also keen to make it pretty comprehensive and certainly not ignoring his more notable roles.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit slow to the party - someone accused me of being Br'er/Merridew! Yep, BB is spot on the money, and I think that we've fallen into this trap because,as Dr. B points out, there is little meat to put on the bones. I feel another cutting job coming on, but ensuring we try and keep in mind that this is an article about an actor and keeping his notable roles (or roles in notable films) dotted throughout, where appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha....I haven't laughed at such a ridiculous noticeboard incident since the WW name change fiasco. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm working my way through with pruning chears and machete: feel free to revert of you think I've gone too far, or cut further, if you think it's not enough. - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can at the moment across the whole piece, so will take a break for today. Feel free to trim further, or add back in, if you feel that I've not got the balance right. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, ahem, I mean Schrodinger.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

PMSL! Gotta love admins sometimes, even when they don't know the rules they're supposed to be safeguarding! - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Image sizes

I need to see a valid reason to depart from MoS guidance on image sizes. What is it, please? --John (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So glad you need to see a valid reason... but thank you for coming to the talk page. You're forcing an overly small image in there (170px) rather than the slightly larger 200px. WP:IMGSIZE aims to get a default to 220px, so you are needlessly going way below that threshold - and for what reason? I'd like to see a valid reason for making the image smaller than the 220px default set by the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you don't understand the MoS and I note your sarcasm. Does anybody else have a valid reason to depart from the image size guideline? If not, I think we should follow the MoS. --John (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note away - I'm glad I don't have to ladle it on with a trowel, but if you post something that is so overtly propriatorial, as if we all have to pass some form of "John test", then what do you expect? It's just a thought for the future, but you may want to think about tempering your language next time so as not to come across as some form of higher being? I say this to you in good faith, because leaving an edit summary of "WP:IMGSIZE" is none to helpful, especially when you've ignored WP:BRD and then followed up with your opening comment here: there's too much reading between the lines for the rest of us to try and guess what your meaning and intent really is. In terms of the substantive matter in hand, what I've noted is that you've failed to address my question and simply said "no, I don't want to do it that way but another way", which is not bringing much to the table to work with. I'll put it to you again, why are you trying to force an image to be so much smaller than the 220px default? If you'd prefer that we set the image to 220, rather than the 200 I'd be more than happy to oblige. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not very good

I see quite a lot of slack writing here. In which language does "Le Mesurier was married three times, more notably to the actress Hattie Jacques" make sense? It isn't English. That this article made it through FAC in this state says nothing for the process. It desperately needs a copy-edit by a proficient writer. --John (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

One error in the lead which you could have fixed yourself? Don't be so bloody bitchy about the work of others and perhaps they may try and assume good faith when you comment. The article was copy edited by a number of people before and during FAC and this minor error was introduced late in the FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, as I said, it isn't a question of that one error, but more an overall slackness of writing. That was one fairly major example that leapt out at me. "A number of" is another; it's better to give the actual number or say "several", as zero is a number, as are negative numbers, pi and so on. I'll make a list. --John (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Try doing it yourself, rather than making a list. Using "A number of" is perfectly acceptable, for a number of reasons, including in situations where the exact number is not known. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Acceptable" to whom? Also, at this level, is "acceptable" the benchmark we are looking for, or should the article aspire towards "brilliant prose"? --John (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

John, I also find your comments "desperately needs a copy-edit by a proficient writer" and "that this article made it through FAC in this state" offensive and an insult to the abilities of the editors who worked hard on promoting this. I'm a decent writer as is Cassianto and Schrod, as are those who looked at this through the FAC such as Tim riley and Brian Boulton. But if you see problems with the prose, you are more than welcome to try to improve it, there's just no need to insult the article or those who edited it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any offence caused. I am not a fan of finding such slack writing on FAs. I'd be more inclined to fix the problems myself if I thought your colleague Schrocat had any idea what brilliant prose looked like. Defending "a number of" does not fill me with hope, unfortunately. --John (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm close to reverting to some fairly base Anglo-Saxon here. If your opening comments hadn't been so arrogant and pompous I may have taken you seriously. Sadly you've managed to compound your poor approach by being deliberately insulting in a rather childish manner. You should know better than to behave like the very rankest form of troll. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted John. I don't mind constructive criticism but the tone of this post to me seemed more a swipe at the quality of the authors and the FA process than the article itself and in doing so you insulted a lot of respected editors on here, including Tim and Brian who I'm sure would scoff at obviously sloppy prose passing FA as you or I would. Why do you think you're the only one who is not happy with the quality of articles here? It is of course possible we all overlooked this, so please highlight the problematic sentences or try to improve the situation itself. A lot of time went into researching the article. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a really nice article, but it is let down by a few infelicitous bits and pieces here and there. "A number of" is one. I'll either list them out here or just fix the article directly. --John (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Melford Stevenson: "and was subsequently critical of some of its decisions" Some? How many? It's shocking poor the dross that gets through FAC nowadays. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice attempted use of tu quoque, SchroCat! But see, I think if we don't know the exact number it is far better to say "some" than "a number of", which seems to verge towards purple prose. --John (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This jealous snipery and general bad faith approach from John has enraged me to the point of replying. I wasn't going to bother wasting my finger power, but I felt compelled to give my two penneth worth . John, you come here, criticising the work of others having not bothered to even engage at FAC, PR, GAC or address the "issues" you think you recognise. Sorry, but this buffoonery makes WP a very dark place indeed. If you would like to check the FAC John, you will see that we had only the best reviewers and editors muck in for the desired result - FA, and all comments and criticisms were addressed to much satisfaction. Perhaps your venom here John is to make up for not being specifically invited into this very engaging topic's review process. I haven't seen your copyediting skills John, but if they are anything like your bad faith, red cloth waving prose here, then I'm bloody glad we didn't ask for it. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I take it you're talking to Schrocat? I'd agree with much of that but I would ask you to tone the rhetoric down a notch or two. We're only talking about grammar and formatting here; a few minor errors on a Featured Article are (sadly) not all that rare. Perhaps you should refocus your "desired result" on improving the article as far as it can be improved, rather than on getting a little star on it? --John (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious, even to the meanest intelligence, that he's talking to you about your uncivil approach. If it is only "a few minor errors" you perceive, then sort them out, rather than trying to make a three-act drama about it and being so uncivil and rude in the process. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

John, you say that there are only a few minor errors and that it is a really nice article but "lot of slack writing" and "desperately needs a copy-edit" implies you think the whole article is a shambles far beyond just minor issues, so forgive others for assuming this. Anyway, let's forget the sniping everybody and concentrate on making the apparently needed improvements.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. John, can we come to some compromise? I think I can speak for my fellow co-nom's when I say "Let's not let the 'few minor errors on a Featured Article' relate to JLM". I would like to emphasise that your errors may not be our errors, so a discussion beforehand would be helpful. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

the Homepride television commercial's voice over

The article makes reference to the middle , late 1960's of a television commercial for Homepride flour. It was extraordinarily effective and an example of it is on Youtube - [Infringing link removed by SchroCat (talk)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already advised you of introducing WP:LINKVIOs. These are links to contributory copyright infringing material. It doesn't matter if the link is in the articler space, talk pages or on user pages: it is still an infringing link and should NOT be anywhere on Wikipedia. See WP:YOUTUBE for further information. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A droll

Just wanted to say that it would be nice if we could link the word "Droll" in this sentence:

"After Le Mesurier's death fellow comedian Eric Sykes commented: "I never heard a bad word said against him. He was one of the great drolls of our time".[158]"

We do have an article on Droll, and Sykes use of the word is a modern usage based on this older usage, but I have not linked it to that article right now because I thought it would be sightly confusing. What do other people think? Invertzoo (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added a wikitionary link to droll, which seems to be the most appropriate. - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion Invertzoo. --Cassianto^Talk 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An Edit War is starting

See the talk page of User talk:SchroCat [Message left by JohnClarknew (talk) 18 April 2013]

John, You certainly don't want to be the one to start or continue an edit war. It leads to a block, which you have already experienced. You need to add a source for the information you want to add: it is that simple I am afraid. A good rule of thumb to remember is that if a fact is not notable enough to be found in the sources then it is not notable enough for inclusion in articles. I disagree that there are no sources; you mention the Radio Times for one and back issues of these do exist in the BBC Library and the British Library for a start. As has been noted below, as you are a living individual, sources do need to be added, under the WP:BLP policy, which you have already referred to me. You know that the policy is that sources must be used, so I am unsure as to why you think that you are beyond the consensus of the community and are allowed to ignore it. I will ask you again not to add that information again without a source. Doing so would probably lead to the edit being reverted again by any number of editors, and could lead to a further block to you for edit warring, a situation I am sure you will want to avoid. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SchroCat for your civil advice. What happened to your true persona, where you yelled "Fecking" at me on your user talk page? I see you have deleted much of the discussion there, and I remind you that it is WP policy never to delete on a user talk page, but to archive if you are ashamed of what you put there. As for this article, I do not think it is well sourced. There are far too many references to multiple page numbers in 2 books, both of which are out of print and hugely expensive (quoted at up to $1,000 on Amazon). To say that the books are available at the library may be good for you British contributors, but some of us live elsewhere, like me for instance in Hollywood California. The same holds true of your denial of my contribution in the article where you say I could provide a reference if I visit the BBC archive of back copies of the Radio Times. I repeat my answer to that point as being the same as the prevous point. However, as a peaceful and conscientious member of our WP society, you could and should have done this yourself - problem solved! As for whether the Just William reference is to a trivial event, I can only link here to the distinguished Just William Society who are dedicated to the continuance and celebration of this character which is part of your British heritage. Why don't you join? It's extremely low priced.

Anyone interest in following this storm in a teacup can do so at User talk:JohnClarknew where I have kept this entire contretemps intact, not subject to deletion. I know of people who refrain from consulting Wikipedia on the grounds that it like entering the play Marat Sade, where the inmates have taken over the asylum. While it is true that the founder and senior admins tend to remain low profile in their attempts to retain control, I would not go so far as to say that, and is why I continue to do battle, particularly with those roving bands of British folk who seem to make the most trouble. I continue to believe in the specialness of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia PLUS), and I think we should all try to donate generously to ensure its survival. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

My true persona is, like most of humanity, one that is entirely human and gets frustrated by people who are unwilling to listen or to follow even the most basic of rules, especially when it is compounded by rudeness and an aggressive stance from others. As to some of your other points:

1. I do not have to archive my talk page I may delete threads if I see fit (see WP:SIGCLEAN);

2. The sources used in the article are entirely relevant, pertinent and utterly reliable. The fact that you cannot obtain them is neither here nor there (see WP:SOURCEACCESS);

3. Numerous sources were included, not just two. The article went through a rigorous peer review and Featured Article review process which was happy with the quality, number and reliability of sources used;

4. "you could and should have done this yourself". Why? I don't have to do anything, especially for something so pointless which isn't important or notable enough to be included in the article.

5. "why I continue to do battle". Wikipedia is not a battleground: those who approach this consensus and collegiate-driven project with a battlefield mentality find their Wiki-lives to be nasty, brutish and short (see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND).

I strongly suggest you change your approach to Wikipedia if you want to last any time here. You also need to avoid adding your own details to articles, as people do take umbrage about this, especially if you continue to add unsourced nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you sleep on it, [in]mate. WP:DR. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You may mean well John, but experienced editors here generally know that turning up at articles on FAs and GAs and starting to make changes or making some unpleasant comments is likely to cause trouble. Getting into an edit war by adding unsourced material isn't going to increase your chances of getting anywhere.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Was there any need for the incivility there? Why do you need to do that and annoy people? No wonder your talk page is littered with people advising you to stop being so rude. If you can't treat other editors with a modicum of politeness then you will not last long on Wiki. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Here here! By the way, you don't need to keep copying and pasting past threads here there and flipping everywhere to "archive them." That's what [diff] is for. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear John, If you want to start another conflagration go over to this page — John Logan (writer) — and edit from what you know of the history of British and American theatre and otherwise performance entertainment. I consider that both you and Logan have Palace cover to write the adulterated rubbish you are willing to come out from your keyboards. {SineBot request for signature} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 23:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Back to the Article

Esme Percy, Ernest Jay, Zena Marshall, Andrew Osborn, John Barry, Tony Hancock, Ian Carmichael, Richard Attenborough, Terry-Thomas, Michael Horden, Maurice Denham, David Niven, Sid James, Peggy Mount, Arthur Lowe, Richard Crenna, Anne Heywood, Fred Astaire, Noel Coward, Warren Mitchell, Dandy Nicholls, Robin Asquith, Antony Booth, Dennis Dugan, Jim Dale, Kenneth Moore, Constance Cummings, Ian Lavender (not sourced), Bill Pertwee (not sourced), Anthony Hopkins.

What does that list of names mean? It means that they are the names that the editors of this article see fit to include as "co-stars, and "featured players" with whom Le Mesurier worked. I put in my own name, John Clark, who played the original radio title role of William in Le Mesurier's introduction to radio in 1946. I believe that removing that reference either on the grounds that I was a nobody, or on the grounds that I would be contravening WP:COI (a guideline, not a statute), or on the grounds that it is not sourced, is raw, glaring, hypocritical NPOV editing. Since no user in London sees fit to help out by checking the BBC archives for historic copies of the Radio Times with a page number, I have to find it myself, even though I live in America. Find it I will, and you will see that the deletion is reversed, with consequences to be seen. Mr. Wales, where are you? JohnClarknew (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All those names are sourced (Lavender and Pertwee are both supported by footnote 123). You added something that was not supported by a source, so it was removed. This is an encyclopedia and information in articles needs to be sourced; this is true for all articles, but especially for Featured Articles. (There are 3,857 featured articles on Wikipedia and they are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer and adhere to the very highest standards we have, which include having reliably and impeccably sourced information). Your name, apart from being unsourced, really does not need to be in the article. It's an article about Le Mez, not about you. The names that do appear are in there for a number of reasons and it is a list that is slimmed down from the first drafts; it was slimmed down to notable, well-known individuals on a number of criteria. Adding the name of an inconsequential unknown adds absolutely nothing to understanding the life or background of Le Mez. As we don't mention most of the films JLM appeared in, I think it would probably be a better idea if we removed the reference to Just William altogether and add in one of his other films roles. Any comments on this from any editors who are not conflicted out? - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment from a Wikireader ——

Any actor's first work in any one field is going to be of interest to a reader of that actor's life. That John Le Mez. . made a first working appearance in a radio drama studio and that was for the BBC Light Programme Just Willam series is good for mention in a wiki portrait page.

A wiki link provided to the series would contain further information [other than the source the present editors are using (where it is on the page that the source is the published book biography)]. That an actor may have played the eponymous William unless he was G.K.Chesterton himself cannot be said to be of an exact interest in the flow of a reader's attention through the wiki biography. John Clark is very much credited with the playing of William on the page that the wiki link would take a reader to.

It is to be noted that the a made-for-tv movie bearing a resemblance to the classic film "Brief Encounter" and with the same title contains an exceptional performance by JLM as a drunken abortionist ( recollective of Denholm Elliot's similar identity in Alfie ). The "starring" actor was Richard Burton. Even with Burton being satisfied to be taken for Robert Beatty I doubt he would be advertising a disturbance to being out of reference on this Wiki page given to Le Mezurier.

One thinks of Raymond Huntley in the same thought as John Le Mesurier.

regards --Laurencebeck (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the list of names you mention happen to be notable, household names with an immense talent. I, and I'm sure millions of other people, have never heard of you. If we put you into the article, then we will have to list all the other extras. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why should we believe that your rare expensive book references to page numbers that readers will never see are true? Did you swear under oath? We tend to forget that WP is for the enlightenment of readers around the world first and foremost, and references should be to easily accessible sources for further study. Yes, yours conform to the letter, but not to the spirit of Wikipedia. I think that Jimmy Wales has many times made clear that the rules are to be construed with intelligence and common sense. You on the other hand are by-the-rules enforcers, and you might both look into becoming Bobbies as a career move, and I don't mean to insult Scotland Yard. I'm thinking Gilbert & Sullivan. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again I will ask you to remain civil in your discussions, and stop reverting to childish gibes. Why don't you get hold of a copy and check? The book is £30 on eBay, where trans-Atlantic shipment can be arranged. There are other online sellers you can also consult to obtain a copy. We do not have to select our sources based on their price on Amazon in the US; we pick them because they are reliable. I am afraid you will have to take my word that your mame is not mentioned by Le Mez, or any of the other sources used. Once again I see you mention Jimmy: why not go and ask him his opinion on dropping unsourced trivia into featured articles? - SchroCat (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My use of humor, which does not appear to be resident in your DNA, is, I think, to be preferred over your use of vulgarity, such as your use of the bolded word "fecking" in association with my name, and which you shamefully erased trace of in your user talk page. You were blocked because of it as everyone knows. Now, to get back to the business at hand:

The BBC has no record of the Radio Times of late 1946, as you will note at their website. The time may come, in late 2013, when their digitizing efforts are nearing completion, when something might show up. It's about time. Then one can do a search on many things online. Here's the news: Radio Times Archives.

I am left with the following alternative. I will not include it at this time, because I would rather see whether this tiny incident, like the canary in the miner's helmet, will indicate the existence of NPOV editing. That is to be compared with NPOV writing, which we all know exists, and is handled properly. Also, no "creator(s)" of a page, featured or otherwise, own it. See WP:OWN. It is there for others to contribute to and edit if they wish.

Under the Bibliography section, is suggested

* Just William Society Magazine. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, UK: Just William Society. 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Then the online ref would read

....in which he played the part of Uncle Noel, also on stage, and was featured in the televised stage show as a BBC Christmas special. [here pp=29-30 are indicated in the citation note.]

There, that's it. As an "inconsequential nobody" (according to some), my name doesn't even appear. I intentionally will not make this change myself, I do not wish to invoke a WP:COI just now. I'd rather see if some other - preferably not yet heard from - user will step up to the plate and do it.

I have removed your shameful plug. This is not the yellow free ads. See WP:SOAP. As for your proposal, it's still non notable trivia so should not be added. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You have REMOVED - what exactly? Nothing was changed in the article. What are you talking about? As for your comment, this magazine is published twice a year, has been for many years, and is full of articles about the incomparable Richmal Crompton, her other writings, and the history of the Just William stories, which go back to the 1920's, and is continued on BBC television to this day. I did but an interview for them. Now dig deep into your pockets and fork out 10 quid, and check it out for yourself, there's a good boy. JohnClarknew (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Again I will remind you to drop the uncivil remarks and gibes about others. Your behaviour is that of a troll, and your bad faith additions to this page will be treated as such. Furthermore, your penultimate comment contained a number of factual errors: if they are by design then you do nothing to aid your cause; if by accident then you do not have a sufficient grip on the policies, guidelines or procedures and that is of concern. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

JohnClarknew, I removed your comment from your above post which advertised your silly society and its joining fees. This is not an advertisement platform so I removed it as per WP:SOAP. DO NOT add thinks like this in future, and please dont talk to me like that. For someone who claims to be an 82 year old, you come across as quite immature. I would request you actually look at the diff of my responces to see what it is I have done before you reply, as you invariably make yourself look rather stupid. -- Cassianto^Talk 10:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that mention John Clark in the context of JLM's early work? Apparently not. Should we be adding any material that could be challenged (let alone material that involves a living person, for which Wikipedia has high standards) and which doesn't have a source to any Wikipedia article, let alone a featured article? No. Do we work to the principle of "Verifiability"? Yes. Is this a case to ignore all the rules? No, because we have rules about sourcing etc for good reason and adding in John Clark's name without a source etc does not improve the encyclopaedia sufficiently to justify ignoring the rules. Is it the case, as someone has said above, that "John Clark is very much credited with the playing of William on the page that the wiki link would take a reader to"? Well, as that entire section has no source at the time of writing, the link itself is no proof of anything. Have I missed anything? Bencherlite^Talk 17:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds spot on to me Bencherlite. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Bencherlite, yes you have missed a lot. Examination of the published source will reveal on page 30 a photograph of John Le Mesurier as Uncle Noel, along with the entire cast of Just William. He is standing behind William, and has signed his name on it. Of course, certain people are desperate to keep this information away from readers. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Clark, Le Mez appeared in the following:

82 stage productions;

161 TV programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher);

43 radio programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher); and

124 films.

He appeared with many thousands of actors in a very long career, including some of the biggest and best in the business. We have listed a small handful of notable ones (either because they are particularly well-known, had an impact, or because JLM appeared with them numerous times). Why on earth, among the several thousand people we didn't add to article, should we add the name of an obscure figure whose name does not appear in any of the major sources, and who may only appear on one issue of a small circulation specialist child's magazine? This self-aggrandisement has gone way, way beyond COI into a place of such deeply questionable motives, that I'm surprised you have the bare-faced gall to demand inclusion into this article of your own miniscule part: I'm afraid it doesn't even merit a passing footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"...doesn't even merit a passing footnote edit summary." ;) -- Cassianto^Talk 19:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I restore the following that you incredibly deleted from this talk page Cassianto. Seems you have a lot to learn about talk pages. This is not a plug, I am an honorary member of the society as is Martin Jarvis O.B.E. It merely shows how to get access to the published magazine. I am ceasing responding to you and to SchroCat.

This hereby informs you that I have emailed the mediation committee as follows:

This complaint is directed against users SchroCat and Cassianto, and concerns the editing of the article on the deceased actor John Le Mesurier. I ask you to step in, because this has gone beyond any further attempts on my part to reason with these gentlemen, and has now got into the realm of Elder Abuse (I am 80 years old.) They brought the page up to what was accepted as featured article standard, and seem to claim ownership of it, and are unwilling to allow this user to make a small uncontroversial addition (not correction). The dispute is amply shown on the article's talk page, which is now being copy-edited by Cassianto, also contrary to WP policy. Please step in with neutral arbitration of this dispute.

JohnClarknew (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Any disagreement with you on the part of those who disagree with you - which now includes me - is not because of elder abuse but because of your apparent insistence that this article should mention John Clark (actor) in connection with JLM (when none of the people outside Wikipedia who have covered JLM's life over the years seem to have thought Clark mentioning even fleetingly) initially on the basis of no source, and now on the basis of a photograph in a magazine. But aside from sourcing, there is simply a limit to how much peripheral information an article about JLM can contain, and I (and others) think that mentioning who was playing the title character in JLM's first radio show is too much information. Bencherlite^Talk 19:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

JohnClarknew, you are NOT allowed to promote money making organisations ANYWHERE on Wikipedia, especially if you have a conflicting interest in said organisation, which you have as an honorary member. SEE WP:SOAP #4 and #5. Deleted for a second time.-- Cassianto^Talk 19:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked the magazine editor if the main authority, the Just William Society, would be so kind as to check in London to see if they could find a source that I (you) required. Their history researcher went to a lot of trouble, and I just got this message of his to the editor:
Went to Westminster Reference Library this afternoon - unfortunately, there was a new-ish librarian who couldn’t lay her hands on the theatre magazine I think I found the 1946 cast list in. In fact, she couldn’t even come up with the title of the magazine, and neither could I (it was a long time ago). So I’ve e-mailed the Society for Theatre Research and asked if they can come up with any possibilities. However, what I definitely did find out was that there NO radio production of the stage play on 29 November, despite what it says in John le Mesurier’s biography. That date was in the middle of the run of the series of half-hour radio plays. The reference in the biography should probably have been to the television broadcast - which is not listed in le Mesurier’s biography. Incidentally, I found a lengthy article in the Radio Times dates 22 November 1946 on William, with a photo of John Clark - I photocopied it, and I’ve attached a scan of the photocopy.

So you see what you started? THE BIOGRAPHY YOU CITE FROM IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE! JOHN LE MESURIER WAS NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE RADIO SERIES AT ALL! He was in the stage play, and was in the televised Christmas special of the stage play. And, as an original unsourced comment, I am here to tell you that I have no memory of his being in the radio series at all, but he did become my friend at the opening of the stage play in Birmingham, and at the Granville, Walham Green, London. And it's my opinion, that to use one book as your main source is extremely limiting, and may not be a reliable source at all, as I have proved. And you have caused a lot of people and other users to spend a lot of unnecessary time on your nonsense. And I see you have back-tracked on your argument by removing other names from your list of celebrity actors in which you felt I did not belong. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave those with greater knowledge of the source materials to comment on this latest claim of yours (although I also note that it's only now that you now say that you don't remember him being in the radio series, which I would have thought you might have mentioned earlier, given the context...) But if Just William wasn't JLM's radio debut, and mention of it gets removed from the article as a result, then any justification for a passing mention of John Clark goes too, doesn't it? Bencherlite^Talk 21:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody gives a hoot what I remember, Bencherlite. I'm nothing without the source, just like a dry and overcooked ham. Now I'm gone, boo hoo. Betcher glad, eh? JohnClarknew (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So how come you've been whining on for the past five days—to the point of being blocked for edit warring—if it didn't exist in the first place? Kinda ironic that really isn't it? I will be able to access the source later to see what McCann shows as the source of his information, although I suspect it may have been JLM's autobiography. As to your comment that "one book as your main source is extremely limiting", we didn't: mutiple sources were used. I'm just bloody thankful we didn't rely on the memory of others to discover what they (mis)remember. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So all this has been for nothing? You now state it didn't exist! What a bloody waste of time this has been. --Cassianto^Talk 07:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have counted your 78 references to page numbers in the one source, McCann 2010. (I have shown that McCann has at least one fact wrong, which led to my spending a ridiculous amount of time on this.) If you were ever in a court of law, you would find that the burden is always that you have to prove something is true, and you did not satisfy that burden. I have no recollection of JLM being in the radio broadcast studio during my series, but surely you know that that is considered to be original unsupported disallowed research? And one piece of false evidence can throw an entire case out the window. In my opinion, the McCann book is tainted and suspect, and this article does not deserve a "featured" designation. Furthermore, your use of the book smacks of WP:SOAPBOX. Do you shill for Amazon? JohnClarknew (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are nothing more than a pointless troll who has no grasp of what a reliable source is, what good faith is, what a featured article is, how Wikipedia works or what reality actually is. If you've got a problem with the article, take it to FAR and see what the wider community thinks. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Another day, another mad rambling from the boring Mr Clark. I'm quite often in a court of law (the right side I might add) and the burden is to prove something is true "beyond reasonable doubt". We have used a source which proclaims to be true; we have no reason to doubt it. This is "beyond reasonable doubt". You warble on like a mad troll who can't get over the fact that his "career" made about as much impact on the theatrical world as a fart in a windtunnel. Your insistence to include your iffy information about a non notable play and its even more non notable cast became boring long ago. Please disappear. --Cassianto^Talk 01:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Beyond Reasonable doubt? - (Self-admitted to be in Criminal court system, not civil): Jury verdict on Cassianto and associates: GUILTY AS CHARGED. WP:HAR WP:NPA WP:OWN WP:WIAPA WP:MEAT WP:OWNTALK WP:AGF WP:EDIT WP:CIV WP:HA. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned if I thought you actually understood what those actually meant and how they are applied. Your propensity to throw the alphabetti spaghetti around without understanding it is actually more amusing than troubling. Are you still sure you were on the November 1946 radio broadcast? You remember, the one you were blocked for edit warring over? - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clark, It was intentional. "If you were ever in a court of law, you would find that the burden is always that you have to prove something is true." Most of your bloody edits are criminal. Proof as if any were needed. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A priori, I am tired of your adumbrated minacious posture, and that goes for the three (or more) of you. Your clubby pretense in expertise has the appearance of an overwritten palimpsest, causing me to seek relief from an anodyne. Your pixilated yet polemical antics don't match your putative claim to knowledge, it is merely sciolism at its worst. It's time you learned to tergiversate and apostatize. Apotheosis in WP does not exist and your attempts to balkanize efforts with the enforcement procedures of a caudillo is indeed the true threatening behavior. Which of you is the eminence grise in this situation? WP's epistemology clearly escapes you. My education is not fungible with your ignorance. Your attempts at hegemony are laughable and ineluctable. You bear the guilt of scienter. I would rather you macerate your manqué experience, and accept guidance from a solon, a patrician, such as myself, and shed your solipsistic approach. Your behaviors are that of a tomnoddy. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The ridiculous and pointless questioning of a reliable source

Having spent a chunk of my own personal time traipsing up to the British Library because of the ridiculous questioning of whether a respected and proven biographer is reliable or not, I am very happy to say that I found in back issues of the Radio Times the information that at 20:15 on 26 November 1946 Episode 10 of Just William was broadcast on the BBC Light Programme, ending at 20:35. It was subsequently repeated on the same wavelength at 16:30 on 1 December 1946.

I then contacted Graham McCann, the author of the book from which the information came and asked about the connection between Just William and Le Mez. He confirmed to me that "the information came from the BBC's written archive records and Le Mesurier's personal files."

Consequently I am more than happy that what we have in this article is an accurate reflection of what is available in the reliable sources, and that those sources have provided archival information from unimpeachable sources.

Clark, you have caused a lot of people and other users to spend a lot of unnecessary time on your pointless and ridiculous nonsense. Please desist. If you wish to add to the encyclopaedia and encourage it to grow, then consider working on developing an article. Just William springs to mind as an obvious place to start, considering your interest in that area. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous SchroCat, John Clark here, Mister Clark to you. You fail to state the connection between JLM and the broadcast of that particular episode. I still don't believe you. Hearsay in my book. I suggest you prove it by downloading a scan of the radio cast list for that date. Include it as a thumbnail in the article, and if it reads that he was in that episode (of which I have no recollection), I will be the first to apologize. JohnClarknew (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Clark, There is no hearsay, so stop trolling. I have provided sufficient information. If you want to see it in black and white, buy the McCann book. Scans are not possible for microfiche records at the BL: I asked and was told that I would have to get it transferred to the rare book section for electronic processing. You want to do that, then you can foot the bill. If you are too parsimonious to do that, then look elsewhere. I have contacted the author to ask him: he has provided an answer. If you also want to hear it directly from him, I suggest you contact him directly. If not, then you will have to WP:AGF. If that is beyond you, then go to the reliable sources people and ask them to make a decision on the matter. I care not what you want to believe or not believe, your pointless trolling on this matter has gone far and beyond any normal or natural behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont be so bloody ridiculous Clark. Where would we be if we had to attach pictures of all the pages we take information from and then add them to the article as proof. You are a troll pure and simple. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Attaching a scan of text from a BBC publication is also a copyright infringement, so even if we could get hold of an image, we would not be able to upload it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

John, please stop wasting everybody's time here and do something constructive somewhere else. Your pointless nit-picking is coming across as trolling.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My submission of proof was that I could upload a picture that I own signed by JLM with me. It was denied on the basis that I could have photoshopped it (a remark that I see the maker SchroCat deleted from this discussion.) I say again, where's YOUR proof? Oh, we must take YOUR word for it, you claim special privilege? Well, all I can say is that you seem to have one set of rules for me and another for you. I am tired of this back and forth, but I'm glad I challenged you on behalf of those who walk away from such things. Age brings stubborn, and the expectation of minimal courtesy and respect. I withdraw nothing, and hope to hear some kind of decision from mediation. As I said, make your evidentiary proof in your favor and I will apologize. If you cannot, then you apologize. You started this whole thing off by denying me my right to submit an interesting fact and accused me of multiple off-the-charts reasons citing rules to back you up. I don't think this is in the spirit of Wikipedia's goals, spirit, or vision, and this controversy shines a light on the cause for a big chunk of the public's decision to stay away from this free source of knowledge. I still believe it's their loss. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

No one is claiming any special privileges at all and I have already explained the source of the information. If you do not like it, then buy a copy of the McCann book ($7.46 on Amazon.com) and look it up. If you still don't like it, then email McCann and ask him where the information came from. Still don't like it? Go to the WP:RSN for the source to be looked at. Still don't like it? Go to WP:FAR for the article as a whole to be looked at. If you do not wish to follow any of those courses, then you will have to live with what is there. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

One More Time

Anyone caring to read the history of this story will learn that a certain group of users seek to MANIPULATE the rules to their advantage, while using those same rules, to deny me my rights as a user. They expect ME to prove the truth of MY post, while also expecting ME to prove the truth of THEIR post (see prev.) Does anyone care? Probably not, with a shrug that it's just business as usual. Well I think it matters a lot. They don't WP:OWN the page, and should not have been doing this from the start, while insulting me along the way. And I think the article would have been improved with my original post. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No-one is manipulating any rules: we know what they are, and you appear not to. There is also no truth whatsoever in any accusations of OWNership. You tried to add a small piece of trivia and it was removed. That is all. All the rest of the accusations, your toxic battlefield approach to any discussion and your constant accusations have had no effect. The article would not have been improved with the addition of your name. There are guidelines against trivia, and we've kept to them. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that editing is a privilege and not a right. If you abuse those privileges then they get revoked. Their work doesn't need proving. It is proven and the evidence being that it's a featured article. If it wasn't reliable then it wouldnt be included. If you want to add material to a featured article, too blooming right you have to prove it is correct. If this is how you feel then See you over here. If not, then find something constructive to add - with sources, or go and edit other pages. Just drop it and move on. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

More Just William

OK, I've seen an awful lot of heat here without really understanding what on earth was going on but have got the impression that User:JohnClarknew is a troll who has been exaggerating issues with the article into something rather ghastly. It seems John Clark is very concerned about the claim in the article that JLM was in a radio play Just William. From a neutral perspective I'd say John Clark, having been in the radio play himself is unlikely to lie about stating that he wasn't in it, as he was not only the lead star in it, but states that Mesuruer was a friend. It seems he's got hold of a scan in his article at http://www.johnclarkprose.com/ which states the dates of the play but doesn't verify that JLM was in it. I believe Schrod when he says he verified it as the dates match and contrary to what John Clark thinks isn't a liar. But I think we do need to find a primary source (other than a biography which is a secondary account) which specifically states JLM was in the play as my neutral feeling on this is that I don't think he'd have any reason to lie about this and however badly Clark is coming across as, I doubt he'd go to such lengths to argue his case if he was lying. The odds are, in my opinion, that John is telling the truth and that it is more likely that the author of that book made a mistake. Who would be more likely to know, somebody who was in the play with a first hand account (even if a boy at the time) or an author with a secondary account? The question I ask to myself is why would John Clark make it up? Is it possible he was friends with Mesurier for years and somehow did'n't even know he was also in the play? Or it is John Clark who is lying about knowing Mesurier and trying to hide the fact that Mesurier was in the play? He'd have to be a complete nut job to invent and kick up such a stink over a lie surely?

I fully believe Schrod when he states that the author verifying it states that he got the information from Le Mesurier’s personal files and BBC. But I think we should try to contact the Le Mesurier family or the BBC and try to verify it first hand. For my sake Schrod, as I've admittedly been rather oblivious to what has been going on here other than the unpleasantries, do you have a personal knowledge of JLM being in Just William which makes you certain of this fact? Because in all honesty I think if something isn't fully verifiable in a source for FA and it is contested by somebody who might have first hand experience of it, then it should probably be removed. I agree that bowing down to trolls and vandals is ill-advised on wikipedia, but there is something about Clark's insistence with this and the fact that he was in the play itself which leaves me with the impression that he might be right that it is an error. Forgive me for speaking up but I think he has a valid argument over that Radio Times source if it doesn't verify he was actually in it and that the author could have made a mistake. The Just William Society and BBC I think should be contacted and we ask the archivist or whoever to confirm this. My feeling is that if there is any doubt over the accuracy of a fact presented it is probably best to exclude it. Mesurier's role in the play would have surely been very minor anyway, even if it is claimed as his debut.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from Doc, but at the moment we have a reliable source that says JLM was in it. I emailed McCann to ask him where he got the information and he has said "the information came from the BBC's written archive records and Le Mesurier's personal files". At present I am happy to go with that published reliable source than the possibly faulty memory of an octogenarian (of a one-off recording that happened when he was 14). I understand that the Just William Society are going to visit the archives and I give a guarded welcome to that. Guarded in that I am not sure whether the individual in person is a skilled researcher who knows definitely where to look, and also that what will be reported will be the full and accurate posting. I am aware of the Radio Times image: I saw the same listing at the British Library a few weeks ago, but it does not necessarily mean that JLM was not in the show, as it looks like a shortened cast list. It could, of course, be the full cast in a rather small ensemble, and that McCann has made a mistake. Having said that, I am not sure how an experienced and reliable writer of McCann's stature could somehow add an unconnected radio appearance onto the list of JLM's radio productions based on the fact he was in a stage production two months later: that seems to be stretching coincidence a little too much, when the more likely reason—of McCann reading the information in the BBC's JLM file—is more likely. (and as to their "very good friendship", Clark was 14 and JLM was 34 when they did JW together, and appeared together in nothing else together afterwards, so I'm not sure how long-lasting or close that friendship actually was! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but given the age that Mr Clark was at the time...could it be that he doesn't remember all the facts? I mean it was 70ish years ago right..? I don't know about you lot, but I can't remember what I had for dinner last week, let a lone a whole load of years ago. But that aside, I would a agree that a citation is needed. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is see through the smoke screen that has been put up over this issue with the attacks on the article and you and Cass and the threats which have been issued even to myself who had no idea what he was on about but was coming across as a typical nasty troll and trying to get down to the core of the dispute. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to kick up a stink over this fact and honestly can see no reason why he would do so if he was certain that JLM was not in the play. I can't see his motive for doing so. I think it's clear that he is the John Clark who played Just William in that play and my personal feeling is that he's probably right about it being an error as he was the lead star of the play and says he knew JLM personally. Possible he is lying but why would he? I'd say, speaking as a neutral encyclopedian, that unless the fact can be verified first hand at the BBC or Just William records with some form of primary proof rather than a secondary source then we should probably remove it. If the evidence was overwhelming with countless sources stating it of course it would be very disputable, but from what I gather one author has said he found info on it and claimed it and it isn't verifiable first hand elsewhere. I'd remove it just to be on the safe side unless entirely certain of the fact. I'd be inclined to put more legitimacy on a first hand account of the play than a secondary in a biography. It is really quite possible that McCann made an error with it, everybody makes mistakes, however eminent. Yes, it is possible that John Clark has his wires crossed and was too young to remember it but he claims that he knew JLM personally and was a friend of his, I really think he'd be aware if they were in any one play together. And it's not as if he is weak in his claim, he's been extremely assertive and seems entirely certain that JLM wasn't in it. Looking at the casting list, it is clear it was only a minor role, not a leading part. Above all I honestly think its probably best to leave it out for now until something is set in stone on it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I know Clark claims he was friends with JLM, but that's something no-one can verify (and the facts—Clark was 14 and JLM was 34 when they did JW together—do seem to make that a slightly dubious claim). Added to that he was only 14 and it was a one-off recording in 1946 we were talking about, then I'm not sure just how he is so certain that JLM didn't play even a minor role. I think the best thing is to wait and see what the JW Society visit to the BBC turns up. If they publish something on their website (as opposed to us hearing it on a second hand basis), that suggests he wasn't in the radio play, then I will happily remove it as it will be the only right course of action available to us. It is only listed because it was his radio debut: I had already suggested removing the reference, but another editor suggested that an actor's first work in any one field is going to be of interest, so to leave it in. Once the JW Soc get back then we can make a decision on the way forward, but it's supported by a reliable source, so it's well-set on that at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmm its a tough one. I'd assume they became friends at a later date rather than then but I don't know. I'd be inclined to take Clark's word for it. But if he can't respond to a good faith attempt to try to provide a solution to this and continues to seem belligerent then I'd probably render him as untrustworthy, even if I'd genuinely like to see some good in him. All I know it that you especially have put a lot of hard work into this article and wouldn't intentionally "lie" or insert false information, and that this has been blown up unnecessarily. My personal experience of you is that you've always been quite serious over things like neutrality and accuracy on a number of occasions. The biography generally would be considered a reliable source on wikipedia, I don't think many would dispute this given that the author professes to have used JLM's personal files and BBC sources. But a first hand account of something is quite extraordinary I think and my natural tendency would be to assume good faith in the concerned party who I think was genuinely in the play himself and would be more likely to know. I'll ask Tim riley and some others who generally have intelligent thoughts over content for some input. I see both sides of the argument but if I have any doubt over a fact I tend to remove it until fully proved to be false or true but I respect Schrod's view on this and don't want to intrude, but it is a subject of debate which needs to be looked at involving more people to get the best perspective on what the right thing to do is for the sake of the project as a whole.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think that, absent of published evidence of the contrary or that it is disputed, we should probably keep the play in the article. If this really was le Mesurier's first radio appearance, it would be possible (if not probable) that he would not have attracted much notice from his fellow cast members. Of course, a contemporary review mentioning le Mesurier would be fantastic... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  I have only just seen all this brouhaha. Good heavens! What a storm in a teacup—with some horribly curdled milk poured in by one contributor. There is no justification for changing the article. On the one hand we have an assertion from someone who claims to have been there in 1946; on the other we have a published source readily available. It would be wholly contrary to Wikipedia's core principle of verifiability to change a verifiable statement to an unverifiable one on the say-so of one editor. What JohnClarkNew says may conceivably be true—published sources are not infallible—but unless someone produces a reliable source to trump the existing cited source it would be irresponsible to change the text. Over the years I have itched on several occasions to add information to Wikipedia articles that I know from my personal knowledge is true, but lacking citations to back it up I have had to hold my peace. Frustrating, but the right thing, alas. If it will help, I shall be happy to toddle down to the British Library to look at issues of The Radio Times for November 1946, but I'll be away from London until 23 May, and will do the deed thereafter if wanted. – Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Tim, Many thanks for the offer—and you're right: this really is a tempest over trivia, and if it wasn't for the fact that this was JLM's first radio broadcast, it would have been removed a long time ago (or not even added in the first place!) I have been to the BL and seen the copy of the Radio Times in question. JLM isn't listed there, but it's a short cast list shown, so entirely possible that he was a minor character who wasn't listed. I pointed this out to McCann when I emailed him, and he said that "the information came from the BBC's written archive records and Le Mesurier's personal files". I have emailed the BBC archives to see if there is any way wee can verify this (they only allow access to academics and those writers with publication agreed). If they are unable to allow access, or check it themselves, then we are waiting on a supposed visit by the Just William Society. If that fails, then we are reliant on the existing reliable source only. Many thanks and regards - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would broadly endorse what Tim says. Reliable sources are sometimes wrong, particularly on relatively trivial matters, but we need more than one person's recollection from 67 years ago to replace the information. The one thing I don't understand is what the citation to the Radio Times (ref 39) is for, since it doesn't confirm that Le M was in the cast. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Brian, the RT reference was in there to confirm the date only, although I see the McCann reference covers all aspects of the preceding material: I'll remove it accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a good description of this editor, and was the impression I got of him, yes Tim, and is why this has gone on so long without getting anywhere. A solution would be to add a footnote next to the Just William reference with "his performance in Just William is disputed by John Clark who portrayed William and claimed to have known Mesurier". But I'd imagine you'd be repulsed with the idea of mention this individual in the article but I think it would solve all of the problems without removing the source which states it. Either way, I'm satisfied with Tim and Brian's outlook on this that we shouldn't really remove what are generally considered to be reliable sources on the whim of a COI editor, I just wanted to be certain we're not committing some grave offense by keeping it when it is disputed as Clark claims on his website. My concern is that if he is right and it is a clear error, then we've failed to answer up for it and although it was 67 years ago he was in it my feeling is that he is more likely to be correct that he wasn't in it but it was a long long time ago. I've decided however that he us about as untrustworthy and unpleasant as you can get and it would be impossible to figure out something with him amicably. He removed this message as "vandalism" and has blown any chances he had of working things out and being welcomed here as an editor. I gave him a chance to show that we'd treated him unfairly and he blew it almost immediately. No respectable aged actor would carry on in the way he has but would communicate reasonably, however embittered, after what I'd said and done. By all accounts Mesurier was a friendly chap and I find it quite hard to believe now that he could have been a true friend of John Clark who has demonstrated an inability to interact with others in anything but a war-like fashion. This definitely needs further verification though and look forward to hearing what the society and the BBC have to say about it and settle it once and for all. Did you say you contacted the Society and the BBC Schrod?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't necessarily say that we've failed to answer for anything. Aside from the fact that the information comes from a reliable source, we've researched British Library sources (inconclusive), contacted the author of the source (who confirmed what he found and pointed out to the primary source archive) and subsequently contacted the archive itself. I'm really not sure what else we could have done, especially based on the potentially flawed memory of an octogenarian recalling a minor event that happened 67 years ago. It's not a grave error to rely on a reliable source for information. We have few hard policies at Wiki, and one that Clark fails to have taken on board is verifiability:

"verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors"

What we have in the article is verifiable. We're actually going way outside that policy to try and verify through primary sources something that has already been published in a reliable source. I have not contacted the JW Society: Clark has. I have, however, contacted the BBC archives to see if they are able to help. - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and even if he was right, at best it is a minor error, rather than a grave error. Frankly his reverting of my perfectly civil messages to him as "vandalism" has convinced me that he is untrustworthy and is bitter than he couldn't insert his name into the article initially. He can rant about it all he likes and waste his last years moaning about wikipedia.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "bitter than he couldn't insert his name into the article initially" - My thoughts exactly. This is why, with people beginning to accept oral history for academic research, I retain my doubts about its validity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a google book search here

It picks up

Who's who in the Theatre - Volume 3 - Page 38 books.google.co.uk/books?id=e8c9AQAAIAAJ John Parker - 1916 - Snippet view - More editions John Parker. Masque of Love Titania Margaret Rawlings Bottom Michael Hordern Nymph Moira Shearer Lover Edgar Evans Ruler of ... produced at PLAYHOUSE, 1 September, 1946, by the Services Sunday Society GRANVILLE 17 December, 1946 "JUST WILLIAM" A ... Ginger Tony Stockman Violet Elizabeth Jacqueline Boyer Egbert Huggins Michael Dear Uncle Noel John le Mesurier 1st Fireman 1 „ ...

It credits Mesurier as Uncle Noel but I think that was theatre not radio, obviously the 1916 date is a typo for 1946. Does John Clark dispute that he was even in Just William, theatre or radio?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Clark contests just the radio version, not the stage one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

All I can find is "BBC Light Programme in a November 1946 adaptation of Just William, where he played Uncle Noel." but its a mirror of John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a verbose discussion. Some doubt has been cast on a fact that is verifiable from a print source, it seems. How about the wording "according to McCann ..."? Divide the sentence with a semicolon also. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded it and I think this is the sensible thing to do. I'm concerned that only one source backs it up and I think until we can be 100% and hear from the society of the BBC this is best. I'm not sure the others will agree I'm afraid but I've done my best to try to clear this unnecessary conflict up. It's rather a petty business. This way we keep the source and the information but state that this piece of information derives from a single person. Take it or leave it, I've done my best to help this situation, I don't like being labelled a "liar" and always try to present information accurately and fairly on what we have to go on. But we can't bow down to the whim of a COI editor based on our verification policy by entirely removing the fact and source.

John Clark, Jimmy Wales and anybody else reading this can see that an effort has been made to assess this and the fact is our verification purposes prevent us from original research which is what your claims come down to vs a published source. I understand you are incredulous that somebody of "your stature" as a "famous" person could be ignored, but policy is policy, the top wikimedia folks would tell you this. Stating that somebody claims on a disputed topic would be the way to deal with this when no other sources back it up at present as Charles says but I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle here and time should be spent more wisely.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair enough addition, at least until further information comes to light, and you're right: far too much time has been spent bending over backwards on this one, especially to someone who seems unwilling to listen to the well-meant advice of so many others, or to appreciate just how WP works in terms of verifiable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'll do is mention he played Uncle Noel in the theatre production of Just William supported by that source above. I'll then say Graham McMann also documents that Mesurier also appeared in a BBC radio adaption of it in November of the same year. Bear with me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that last edits are an improvement, adding yet more detail into an already over-detailed article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's the change. It initially looks like overlinking of Just William but one links the theatre, the other to radio, I'd be happy to remove either link, up to you. But given the radio performance I thought it was important to also mention he appeared in the theatre production and it is quite possible the radio performance was well received and they decided to put it on stage. I think if we are going to mention his radio performance, then not mentioning that he appeared on stage in it soon after doesn't fill in the picture. The late 40s isn't covered in excessively detail, in fact we have nothing for 1947. I don't know. you'd think it would be more likely to go from theatre to radio but I don't know. Maybe John Clark is right. Maybe he doesn't remember it. But one things for clear, his nasty "Watchdog" blog article is now obsolete, this article now neither use the Radio Times source, and simply says McMann claims he made his radio debut, so we are hosting the information without "taking sides" and merely reporting on what has been reported according to our verification guidelines. Nobody can claim now that we're "lying", but we're reporting what has been reported elsewhere in what would generally be considered a reliable source. What a fiasco! Thanks Schrod, yeah you deserve better than this, move on!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reworked sentence in its present form is not quite grammatical, and has a few surplus words. At present it reads: "According to biographer Graham McCann, Le Mesurier had also appeared in a BBC Light Programme radio adaptation of Just William a month earlier in November 1946, and claims it to have been Le Mesurier's debut on the radio." Without wishing to prolong this tedious issue, may I suggest: "According to biographer Graham McCann, a month earlier Le Mesurier had appeared in a BBC Light Programme radio adaptation of Just William, which McCann claims was Le Mesurier's radio debut". Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

BBC Archives

I have now received an email from the BBC archives stating that Le Mesurier was not in the 26 November 1946 broadcast of Just William. Accordingly I am removing reference to the programme from the article. I have asked the BBC to check for Le Mesurier being listed in the cast for the episodes either side of that date, but it seems sensible to withdraw the information for now. – SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As the member of the Just William Society who has spent a great deal of time over the last few weeks trying to resolve this issue on John Clark's behalf, may I say something? Firstly, if anyone doubts my credentials as a researcher they can Google my name and the phrase "From the Penny Dreadful to the Ha'penny Dreadfuller", and see proof that I can conduct lengthy and detailed research. Secondly, it's obvious that no-one contributing to this debate fully understands the history of Just William on the radio. The radio series in question was the second to be broadcast on the BBC - the first ran from 30 October 1945 to 25 June 1946 - 35 thirty-minute one-off comic plays, the first 22 episodes being written by Richmal Crompton (the creator of the character) and, from episodes 23 onwards, by Alick Hayes. The second series began on 24 September 1946 and ran until 18 March 1947 - 24 thirty minute episodes. John Clark played the lead role in both series. The cast lists in the Radio Times were those of the main characters only. As you now know, I was able to obtain a list of the complete cast from the BBC Archives which conclusively proved that John Le Mesurier was not in the cast of the episode broadcast on Tuesday 26 November 1946, as stated by his biographer. Le Mesurier's one and only connection with Just William was as one of the original cast members of the stage play "Just William", written by Alick Hayes and which appears to have premiered in Birmingham sometime in 1946, and then toured the country. In December 1946 it played at the Granville Theatre in Fulham, London, and the performance on Monday 23 December 1946 from that theatre was broadcast live by the BBC on television. John Clark again played the title role, with John Le Mesurier being cast as Uncle Noel.

As a researcher, I well know that mistakes can be made, and it is quite clear in this case that Le Mesurier's biographer made a mistake when he stated that Le Mesurier appeared in Just William on the radio on 29 November 1946, in particular in that there was no broadcast of Just William on that date, and, as now know, he did not appear in the broadcast on 26 November. He also overlooked Le Mesurier's appearance on television in the live broadcast of the stage show on 23 December, as this is not listed in the biography. I see no reason why the Wikipedia entry shouldn't mention this latter appearance - I have a copy of the page from the Radio Times which verified this if anyone would like to see it.

Robert Kirkpatrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.186.51 (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Robert, and thank you for your post. Firstly, the question goes beyond when Just William was broadcast: this is a long article which already misses out the majority of Le Mesurier's performances across all media: is there any reason why we should add a minor appearance in the stage show to the article when so much has already been cut out? We've tried to keep the majority of mentions here focussed on key points, or have some notable reason (first stage or television appearance, etc) It was because of that criteria that the radio show was included, as it was thought that the broadcast was his first on radio. Now we have established that JLM wasn't in the radio show, mention of Just William has been removed to keep the focus on the notable.

Secondly, does Le Mesurier appear in the Radio Times listing for the December 1946 appearance? - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine - I'm not all concerned as to whether or not Le Mesurier's appearance in Just William is mentioned in his Wikipedia entry or not - as you say, it's a long article, and you can't list everything. And yes, the cast list for the television broadcast of the stage play does include Le Mesurier - I've got no idea if or how I can submit a copy, but I can tell you that it lists the 6 main actors and their roles, and follows this with "Other parts played by......John Le Mesurier...." (with several other actors being listed).

Robert Kirkpatrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.186.51 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the last point: the BBC records are unclear, with two of their three records not listing him. Much obliged, I shall update his list article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert, a follow-up question, if I may. You say that "the cast list for the television broadcast ..." Which list is this? Could you let me know what the source is? (Programme, theatre notes, published source etc?) Could you also let me know which date this was broadcast? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The cast list is that given in the Radio Times. (It's worth pointing out that getting hold of copies of the Radio Times from the 1930s/1940s which included television programmes is quite difficult - there were two different editions, and the collection held at the British Library at St. Pancras seems to be made up of a mixture of both. I can't remember where I copied mine - it was some years ago - it may have been the Newspaper Library at Colindale). Anyway, the page gives the television programmes for Sunday December 22 to Saturday December 28 - so the publication date of that issue of the Radio Times would have been 20 December (as I think it was published two days before the listings started, if you follow my drift). The cast list, or at least the original cast list, is also given in the published script of the play, published by Macdonald & Young - undated, but according to the British Library Catalogue 1950. And, as I said earlier, it was broadcast on Monday 23 December at 7.00 in the evening. I've got no idea if or how I can upload the photocopy - I could send it as an attachment to an e-mail address if you'd like to see it for verification purposes.

Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.186.51 (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robert, No need to upload the copy - it would possibly be a breach of the copyright laws anyway - but if you could forward me a copy I will be able to extract all the relevant information for footnoting. Could you email it to me at wikischrocat squiggly a sign gmail com? It's of more importance than the script, partly because it's published, but because it depends on the script. (ie. was it a one-off for the day of recording, or a general one, because a general one dies not mean JLM appeared in the recorded version). Either way, as the RT has the cast list we can take it from there. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of completing the record, I have e-mailed you with a scan of the photocopy of the Radio Times showing the television broadcast of the stage play on 23 December 1946. I have also sent you scans from the published script of the play, showing John Le Mesurier as one of the original cast members. To emphasise, this was not a one-off script for the day of recording, but a commercially published script. Copies are available from a variety of booksellers on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.186.51 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional sentence

Based on the above, having seen the Radio Times article in question - I suggest we add the following to the article ..small roles with Croydon repertory[38] and a role in a televised stage production of Just William<ref>Radio Times 23 December 1946</ref> which appears accurate and relevant. Worm^TT(talk) 12:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this question still going on? I thought we'd all moved on from this. As I've already covered in the thread, directly above, this one single television broadcast is only a very, very, very minor part in JLM's life and to include it seems like a rather questionable and pointy inclusion, to be honest. One he did not even bother to mention in his autobiography, so insignificant is it in his life.

• A number of reviewers during PR and FA commented on the excess detail and over-listing of works in which JLM appeared; a lot of work was done at both those stages to remove superfluous detail and fluff, including minor works which were not notable, carried no critical review of JLM, or did not carry some special cachet (first radio/tv/stage appearance; roles in particularly notable films, such as Ben Hur, etc).
• Le Mesurier appeared in 82 stage productions; 161 TV programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher); 43 radio programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher); and124 films: to mention every minor role, such as JW, would lead to a ridiculously long and unreadable article.
• The long list of JLM' works was for this reason that John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record exists: it covers all individual entries for the career which are supported by a reliable source.
  

On the basis of the above, the inclusion of this piece of near-trivia really does seem pointless. That it is also at the insistence of an editor who is blocked for making spurious legal threats, who has said he will only lift the threat if he gets his own way, seems to be rather cart-before-horse to me, coming from an editor who has shown he is unable to understand what consensus-led or collegiate editing is all about. Worm, Could you give some good reasons for actually including this information? There seem to be a number of arguments against it, but I'd like to hear how this inclusion actually improves it? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't agree, this appears to be more relevant than quite a few of the other roles mentioned, and clarifies the incorrect statement that he only found work in the Croydon repertory. Indeed, I find a televised version of a stage play at the same time to change the entire incorrect tone of the previous sentence. As for the "all moved on from this", I'm afraid I've been unavoidably detained over the past few days, and would like to hear from other editors on this topic. Worm^TT(talk) 13:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the statement has been pared down to ten words - I'm surprised you're quite so deadset against it, when it's well sourced and perhaps his largest role after the war but before his film debut. Worm^TT(talk) 13:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked to remove the incorrect tone. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help a lot. Worm^TT(talk) 13:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The uncle role would have been a minor character, I think there would have been more notable roles in which he appeared in which aren't even mentioned in the article. I mean, if JLM played Just William that would be a major role but he had a relatively minor role in a play, no different to many others of the period..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a good point, certainly. I used to read Just William myself and don't remember the uncle - possibly created specifically for the play. I do still believe it is worth a mention. I've been reading up on the play over the past couple of weeks, hunting through Times newspaper archives primarily, and it does seem that there was significant coverage of the play - to the extent that there was a televised version at Christmas. I would suggest that the specific adaptation itself is notable and I do intend to write an article when I get the time, I've been hoarding sources! As such, I would have thought the role was also notable. Worm^TT(talk) 13:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with mentioning it, but I like articles to be a comprehensive as possible... But I don't think that role stands out really above any of the others. I've read the books and can't remember that character either. Isn't the 1946 section header now redundant though? It skips to 1948 currently..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the way I think, comprehensive is good especially as it is such a small addition. As I said, I think the character might have been written specifically for the stage adaptation, I'll have to do a bit more digging to be sure about that though. Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, comprehensive can be good, but JLM was in 82 stage productions; 161 TV programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher); 43 radio programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher); and 124 films. If Just William goes in, shall we add the rest, just to ensure that each and every performance he undertook is given equal weight? Or shall we rely on the John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record to be comprehensive? - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, "slippery slope" arguments don't hold much weight with me, I'm not asking for all the productions to go in. I'm stating that this specific adaptation of Just William is notable and does explain what he was doing in that 1946-48 lull, which is useful to readers. JLM was in 82 stage productions but only about 20 of them are blue links. How many of those were televised, I wonder? It's not like this is a completely insignificant role. Worm^TT(talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no "slippery slope" argument: just that stacked up against the weight of all his work, this is trivial nonsense. How many films was he in - with a bigger part, a wider audience and a bigger pay cheque? He would have had more lines in a single episode of Dad's Army than in this one minor piece of work, but we don't mention each and every one. The adaptation of JW isn't that notable (although the JW page would be the best place to put all this ephemera), certainly not in the career of JLM: are there any reviews that mention him? No. Did he raise it in his autobiography? No. Not at all. I'm surprised you're quite so deadset on its inclusion, especially as it's at the insistence of an editor blocked for legal threats. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Implying that we should include every performance is a slippery slope argument, just as implying my comments here are at the insistance of an editor blocked for legal threats are ad hominem. If you look at his talk page, you will see his request is different to mine, different source, different text. This request has come from me, and me alone - in the interest of finding a decent compromise. Compromise being the first step towards collaboration. If you are unwilling to collaborate, I'll quite happily ignore your contributions and discuss the matter with editors who are.

The adaptation is notable by Wikipedia's standards - it is covered by multiple independent reliable sources. It's currently a red link, but I do intend to write the article. The information is trivia, indeed - as is the majority of information on this article. It is written in a manner that adds to the article, adds to the flow and it is well sourced. No, he didn't raise it in his autobiography, but it was mentioned in his biography, if incorrectly. Talking about remuneration and audience levels are red herrings, stage productions are notable and at the time they were very relevant. The world has changed to increase the prevalence of television and film, but in 1946 this was very different. I should point out that the stage show in question was in the Graville Theatre, Waltham Green - so a London theatre, and ran for a significant period. So perhaps it was slightly bigger audience than you might think Worm^TT(talk) 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no ad hominem, and it's disingenuous to try and imply that there is. To follow this up with "I'll quite happily ignore your contributions" seems a very odd stance indeed. Would you consider it constructive if your views were ignored, just because they differed with another editors? No, you wouldn't, so please try and keep an even and open mind on this. You have twisted my words slightly around the notability point. Rather obviously, I have not said that the play is not notable from the Wikipedia point of view, I have said it was not notable "in the career of JLM", which is obviously different. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Twice you've stated that I'm only adding this at the insistence of a blocked editor, thereby negating my views through an ad hominem argument. I'll rephrase my "ignore" comment - I've no problem discussing the addition with you and other editors, but I'm also willing to focus on useful discussion and stop responding to logical fallacies. Does that help?

You and I will have to agree to differ on whether it is notable in the career of JLM. I find a part televised version of a long running play where he played a regular role to be relevant, especially when it is regarding a time his biographer implied was a dry spell. Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How long was JLM in the play? When did he join/leave? What did reviewers make of his performance - either in his stage version or the single, one-off television broadcast? Just to clarify, his biographer didn't imply it was a dry spell: JLM did find work, but nothing of note or long-lasting impression, which is also the view JLM gives in his autobiography. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I will check my sources and get back to you on the first two, but I didn't see any reviews of his performance specifically. Also, thank you, "nothing of note or long-lasting impression" is a different impression that I was getting from the article, and does help my understanding Worm^TT(talk) 14:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I stick my oar in again? The stage play premiered in Birmingham in late 1946 (I don't think anyone knows the exact date) and then toured the country for around two years, playing in theatres belonging to the Moss Empire. (See the "Just William Series" Wikipedia article). It played in London at the Granville Theatre, Fulham in late December 1946. The plot was entirely original and not based on any of the original Just William stories. The part of Uncle Noel was therefore written specifically for this one play. Uncle Noel does not appear in any of the Richmal Crompton William stories. I don't know how long Le Mesurier was in the cast, but I have a programme for the performance at the Theatre Royal, Norwich, for the week commencing 24 March 1947, in which Uncle Noel is played by Harry Carter, In fact, only a handful of the original cast were in this performance (including John Clarke as William), It would be wrong to say that Le Mesurier had a role in a televised stage production of Just William - it would be more accurate to say that he appeared in a touring production of a stage play, Just William, in late 1946/early 1947, one performance of which, from the Granville Theatre. Fulham, was broadcast live on BBC Television on Monday 23 December 1946. Robert Kirkpatrick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.186.51 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Robert, The only additional information for appearance I have is that he was in the production in December 1946 when it visited the New Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still sunning myself at the moment on a Barbadian beach, so please excuse my absence; I am totally opposed to any JW text from going in. It is a minor and trivial role for which JLM was not known for. JLM was a jobbing actor and it is therefore unnecessary to list every single bloody performance of his in this article. For those who wish to have this implimented, please refer to the FAC; alternatively, please add it into the JW article, but leave this one well alone This stupid poxy argument has gone on long enough and I would request that all the supporters of this nonsensical inclusion go off and do some constructive editing.

-- Cassianto^Talk 17:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of brusque attitude from some members of the Wikipedia community which has led me to decide not to contribute as an editor. I have simply being trying to set the record straight. Seeing the venom, antipathy and distrust on display throughout this whole saga is quite sickening. Robert Kirkpatrick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.186.51 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to understand IP, that this argument has rumbled on for over two months now, and has become very tiresome. All the time we are distracted by this same old argument, other articles are being neglected. Both SchroCat and I are prolific in our contributions to this project, but it is becoming impossible to maintain this level of editing due to the same old boring argument which keeps rearing its head on these exhaused pages. I would urge you to stay with us on WP, but instead concentrate your time on something which is going somewhere as opposed to nowhere. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem, Cassianto, is that there are different people with different arguments, and the pair of you are lumping us all in together. This has developed from John Clark attempting to add his name to the article, to claiming a source was unreliable, to arguing over whether the article was correct, to this current suggested addition being vetoed because "it's trivial nonsense" or because the argument has gone on too long. If you are tired of an argument, the solution is to stop arguing, and get more people involved (RfC) - not to start attacking the other side. If you cannot help but make unpleasant comments, the best thing to do is walk away.

You'll note that you're not the only prolific contributor here - Dr. Blofeld has created more articles than any editor I know, and if I might toot my own horn - I've made some pretty valuable contributions myself, yet neither of us have felt the need to fall into that sort of comment, which will drive away potential contributors. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As one of the nominators for JLM's FAC, I feel obliged to stay involved with any content dispute on these pages. I helped write, so I'll help defend. Secondly, If an ip is that easily offended, then I don't hold up much hope for them on WP in the future; this is playground stuff compared to some other arguments! -- Cassianto^Talk 08:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Very depressingly true. Worm^TT(talk) 08:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)