Talk:Hattie Jacques on stage, radio, screen and record

Page move
This page was recently renamed unilaterally and without discussion (as part of a series of other such painful moves) to "Hattie Jacques performances". Are we such an enemy of the possessive form that we we encourage such abominations of the English language? I think we could revert this back to the more appropriate and correct form, without too much pain? - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent citations for Juke Box Jury
Please discuss this here, per WP:BRD. The citations that are being added are not loading and therefore unverifiable. They are also badly formatted and open to link rot. This is wholly unacceptable,e for a featured list.  Cassianto Talk   22:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I was about to protect this because of the reverting. To the anon, I've tried your links but can't get them to load. Cassianto, are you able to see the sources? SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I've just this minute reported the IP at SPI here.   Cassianto Talk   22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The .bbc part of the domain simply does not exist. Teh closest you can get is http://genome.ch/ which does not look like anything useful. Note that the .co in the URL is typical of hoax sites put up by Jestin Coler. See List of fake news websites. It could be a coincidence, but it sure does not look as if it was ever an official BBC page. Meters (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, .  Cassianto Talk   23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Meters, thanks. In that case, I'll revert and semi-protect. SarahSV (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * John beat me to it. SarahSV (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of the article content, but I'm highly suspicious of these so-far unverifiable claims. Meters (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Our article on Juke Box Jury does say Hattie Jacques was a panelist four times over the years, not four times in 1961 (without a source), and I don't see where the source cited for that statement in this article actually says so - it's a letter from naval airmen that says they saw her on Juke Box Jury in 1961, but it doesn't say how often she appeared there or whether she appeared at other times, too. So while the IP's sources are useless, I don't think the current content is well-sourced either. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all here. I'll have a scoot about for something reliable (that we can actually open) and hopefully that'll be the end of the matter. Thanks again, and if I don't get to speak to you all before, have a great Christmas and a fantastic New Year!   Cassianto Talk   23:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The BBC Genome site is actually currently down, so any attempt to click on the sources would indeed create a false citation. That is unfortunate. However, every single edition of Juke Box Jury is listed on that site - when it's up and running. The BBC Genome site is accepted and verified by wikipedia in multiple instances as a reliable source. When Cassianto was using the sock puppet SrchoCat, they removed the source then too. Regardless, it is a nonsense for a claim "Jacques appeared four times in 1961" without any source at all to be accepted, when someone - not me - went to the trouble of sourcing all four appearances made by the actress over a six year period. The article is now wrong thanks to editor 'John' (probably another sock puppet of Cassianto) locking the page in it's incorrect state. The bullying that goes on on this site is astonishing. Cassianto needs to provide a valid source to back up their claim that Jacques appeared four times in 1961. If they can't, then their edit needs to be removed and the sourced edit stands. That all I was doing.72.245.246.219 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell me, are you a sock of me as well? Maybe I'm arguing against myself? It could even be possible that the whole community is me? Heck, I pay enough on fibre optic subscription, I'd like to get my money's worth!  Anyway, when the citation is back up and running, and once the protection has expired after Christmas Day, and assuming, of course, I can make my mind up as to who exactly I am, maybe we can have a discussion about the citation you've found and add it if it's verifiable.  Until then, have a great Christmas!     Cassianto Talk   23:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You are also SrchoCat. Until you 'retired' that ID. Now you claim to be 'semi retired' as Cassianto. Who will you be appearing as next? I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are posting under Huon and John too. Provide a citation or source that Jacques appeared four times on Juke Box Jury in 1961. If you can. Since you can't, your edit is incorrect and the article is now incorrect. You made it incorrect. What a farce of an editor.72.245.246.219 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "BBC Genome ‏@bbcgenome 11h11 hours ago- Our website is still down and might be until Monday, sorry. We're working very hard to fix it and are grateful for your patience." Outrageous that Cassianto was allowed to remove verified, sourced information just because a technical error existed. If The Guardian or The Times websites go down, does Cassianto go through wikipedia and undo every single reference everywhere on the site supported by those two sites? No. Where is Cassianto's source verifying that Jacques appeared four times on Juke Box Jury in 1961? If they can't provide one, why is that edit allowed to stand? Jacques NEVER appeared on Juke Box Jury in 1961. Not even once. What a farce this site is. Cassianto also deleted a complaint opened about their abuse and bullying before it was investigated and uses multiple accounts to edit. When the BBC Genome site is up again and the sources verified, apologies need to be issued by several editors. 72.245.246.219 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference that the text currently uses is here. The reference you are trying to use is...er....well, nowhere, as its broken. That's why I've not....sorry, we've not allowed it.  Cassianto Talk   23:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The source was added months ago and you removed it then when you were editing as SrchoCat. You returned to the subject many, many times and removed it several times under several aliases and sock puppets that you used and we have verfied that you edit in that way. We cannot accept the current edit as the source you have provided is not acceptable under any wikipedia terms. We have verified this. Happy Christmas Troll!72.245.246.219 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The url genome.ch.bbc.co.uk does seem to be valid even if it is currently down. That's the link that BBC Genome Project has listed since the article was created in 2014. Meters (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The site is now up again and a search does show her listed as a panel member four times over several years, I don't have a copy or access to the Merriman book used as a source to know what it says. Nthep (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To quote Merriman: . Merriman could've been wrong when he said this, but this is what the source says. But as well as Merriman, Genome could also be inaccurate.  The Radio Times has always been printed and published at least a week ahead of schedule, and only displays the BBC's intentions for that timeframe. The Genome source does not report who actually appeared, only who was scheduled to appear.   Cassianto Talk   21:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How does Merriman put this into context of this all occurring in 1961? There doesn't seem to be a statement to that effect so Merriman's intention could be to make it wider e.g.       The point about the Radio Times is correct but I would suggest that for her not to have appeared on every occasion after it being scheduled is unlikely and, in all probability, she did appear on JBJ in different years (A pity the recordings don't still exist).  Unless there is another source perhaps we need to accept that she did appear more than once on JBJ per Merriman but leave the dates out as unsourced/unconfirmed?
 * no-one minds having a discussion as long as every one assumes good faith but your unsubstantiated allegations of sock puppetry make it difficult to view the rest of your comments in a neutral light. Nthep (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)