Talk:John Le Mesurier

"perhaps best remembered"

I removed the vague and unsourced guess about what Le Mesurier is "perhaps best remembered for". This was reverted on the grounds it was "supported by article text". Could someone indicate where this guess is in the article, and whose guess it is? I can't find it. Were they so unsure that they had to qualify their guess with "perhaps", or can the article be bolder and remove this? Can it also be clarified who is doing the remembering?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. You should read the article to get the information, the opening line of para 2 in the 1968–77 section should suffice. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you elaborate more on "It's fine as it is"? The line you reference is ;

"Nicholas de Jongh, in a tribute written after Le Mesurier's death, suggested that it was in the role of Wilson that Le Mesurier became a star."

If the lead was to reflect this is would be better saying;

"He became a star through his comedic role as Sergeant Arthur Wilson in the BBC television situation comedy Dad's Army (1968–77)".

Or did Nicholas de Jongh also suggest how Le Mesurier might be best remembered, but was a bit unsure about it? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much every source describes the importance of Dad's Army in making JLM something of a household name, rather than a good bit-part player (including his autobiography). I see you have gone through many articles in removing the term from articles, regardless of what the text may or may not say (your removals are so quick, it's just not possible to have read the article to make sure you're doing the right thing, rather than just having a bee in your bonnet about a particular phrase). - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

And just to ensure there is no more silliness of the point, I have added a reference, even though it is supported by the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt the significance of Dad's Army, which is why I suggested the wording of "He became a star ..." above. I don't follow why you prefer the wishy-washy, uncertain, beating about the bush of "perhaps best remembered".

I think "he became a star" is a terribly cliched phrase, and it is also not strictly true, since this actor had already had starring roles on stage, radio and elsewhere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to understand my aversion to this ridiculous and pointless phrasing, you can read it here. If you have any examples of where I've removed it unjustifiably, I'm happy to hear them. I rarely encounter any article where its use is called for and cited.

It's a pity that Le Mesurier's article must start so weakly. It doesn't do him any justice. I wonder if it would be acceptable on other articles?

• The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October 1066 and perhaps best remembered as beginning the Norman conquest of England.
• Adolf Hitler was a German politician who is perhaps best remembered as the leader of the Nazi Party
• The 1901 FA Cup Final was played at Crystal Palace and is perhaps best remembered as being between Tottenham Hotspur and Sheffield United

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah well, you have a 'thing' for a phrase; it's one used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica quite happily (and 250 years of their experience isn't something to ignore with trite like "ridiculous" and "pointless", despite your 'learned' opinion). Ironically they use the phrase for John Laurie, which you deleted recently; any chance you could self-revert? I'll do it shortly, if you don't feel up to it. Either way, this article passed FAC – attended by some of the best editors we have, and the term is now cited, as it was always supportable, despite your opinion. Time to move on, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel your support for this phrase lacks anything beyond that's what others do. The cites you've added demonstrate that what he was most famous for and I've asked you a number of times now to explain why you feel the need to cast doubt on this, or find the need to explain how he might be best remember. Perhaps you could explain the problem with the change I'm proposing? Is it not accurate? Does it not state facts? Is it not in line with the sources?

You are displaying ownership, refusing to allow or even contemplate changes on the basis they're not yours, preferring to instead employ an unhelpfully snide tone in discussions. What are you accomplishing by putting sarcastic quotes around your responses that address me rather than the content?

If you revert the change elsewhere, then I fear we'll just be repeating this conversation there. So perhaps you could spend some time finding a better justification? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've cited it to a reliable source, and just because I disagree with your campaign to remove this supported phrase means I have ownership issues? FFS... I'll revert Laurie shortly, because you are taking an unreasonable POV which ignores reliable sources. As to your pointless reference to WP:OSE, that relates to "similarities across the project" – absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about here, in other words. – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

He played Sergeant Arthur Wilson in the series in around 80 episodes, so I am sure that he is best remembered for the role. I would trust SchroCat, who has read all the references, to reflect the sense of those references, rather than someone who just stopped by the article to blitz his favorite hated phrase. It is a terrible shame that people who give countless hours of their time to writing excellent, well-researched, comprehensive articles for Wikipedia can be subjected to this kind of harassment by people who have not read a single source but who can fill up an entire talk page with argumentative wikilawyering. Shameful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers. Writing FAs is hard enough work without this kind of unhelpful sniping. I shouldn’t have quibbled if the phrase here omitted "probably". Of course Sgt Wilson is what Le Mesurier is best remembered for. If you were to ask a random hundred British people who he was, those who knew the name would nearly all say he was the actor who played the sergeant in Dad's Army. To object to this phrase here because one has a bee in one's bonnet about it is inappropriate to the verge of fatuity. To my mind, it borders on trolling to labour the point at such inordinate length as above. Tim riley talk 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And I have repeatedly explained, the source you are citing explained that it made him a star. It does not say it is "perhaps" how he is "best remembered". If you wish the content to be supported by sources that say that Dad's Army is what made him famous, then say that and stop faffing around with "perhaps" and "best remembered".

Regarding "your campaign"; WP:IDONTLIKEIT relates to arguments that are "purely personal point-of-view.". I've explained a number of times exactly the problems with this content, and none of them are purely based on my personal opinion. And yet that is how you choose to dismiss them, refusing to discuss further.

As for the length of time this has wasted, well indeed. One wonders what motivates someone to spend such time on something with a consistent refusal to respond to direct questions. Would a simple bullet list make it easier?

• What purpose does the word "perhaps" serve in the lead? Is the content that follows in any doubt?
• Why is "best remembered for" a better turn of phrase than "was made a star by"?

As for the other comments above; all I can say is I've been perfectly cordial, and accusations of harassment and trolling are both discourteous and not in the spirit or policies of Wikipedia. Indeed, given that my attempts at discussion has been dismissed as 'silliness', with suggestions that I should "move on" (a text book response from someone who believes they own the article) and my thoughts are sarcastically mocked as 'learned', it is I who should be upset. SchroCat's responses from the off have been dismissive and combative, while attempts to focus on the article content are rebuffed with responses focused on me and my 'thing'. Editing Wikipedia shouldn't have to involve such unpleasantness.

Lastly, regarding my suggested replacement; "became a star" is a bit of a cliche and not my preference by any means. But I was trying to reach a compromise and consensus in the face of SchroCat's insistence that we should note what his source said in the article. But now I see Ssilvers actually wishes to discount that source as "not strictly true", in preference to what the lead says unsupported.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, the source against the statement does not say it made him a "star" - which is a dubious term at the best of times, outside the cinema of the golden age. And yet again you throw an OWN accusation (and this time added with harassment and trolling? - how is responding to your comments "harassment"?) ... it's all a rather a tedious response to refuting your campaign against something that stands up against the source used. The fact you don't like the phrase is neither here nor there - there seems to be a consensus that its use is acceptable here, despite your pushing for its removal.

A couple of sources back up the wording (and the consensus we have here)

These use the phrase "best remembered" or similar, including "most remembered", probably, possibly, etc. News reports A fairly quick search, not at all comprehensive, and not all entries would pass a WP:RS check: ON THIS DAY - APRIL 5, 2018 DAILY MAIL (London), April 5, 2018 Thursday, (491 words), BY NO BYLINE AVAILABLE April 5, 2018 ON THIS DAY Scottish Daily Mail, April 5, 2018 Thursday, NEWS; Pg. 32, (501 words), ETAN SMALLMAN; ADAM JACOT DE BOINOD On the trail of town's blue plaques Isle of Thanet Gazette, March 4, 2016 Friday, NEWS:PEOPLE; Pg. 22-23, (976 words) A FOUR-BEDROOM seaside house in Margate[...]; HICKEY The Express, September 29, 2015 Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. 19, (152 words) A FOUR-BEDROOMED seaside house in Margate, [...]; HICKEY Scottish Express, September 29, 2015 Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. 19, (153 words) Dad's Army star Bill Pertwee who played warden Hodges dies in his sleep, age 86 MailOnline, May 27, 2013 Monday 6:20 PM GMT, NEWS, (1350 words), EMILY ALLEN C4's Very Important People debuts with 1m Broadcast, April 30, 2012 Monday, (446 words) *52 Things You Never Knew About Bedford - Comedians Bedfordshire Times & Citizen, August 26, 2010 Thursday, (330 words) HATTIE'S HEART BREAK; A new drama explores the torrid secret life of one of our greatest comediennes - the married man, toyboy lover and a betrayal that caused her binge eating The Express, May 18, 2010 Tuesday, FEATURES; Pg. 22,23, (1293 words), Simon Edge Forget Me Not (but remember me warts and all) The Times Higher Education Supplement, August 20, 2009, FEATURE; Pg. 36, (1769 words), Matthew Reisz My horrifying secret, by new Fleur in the Forsyte Saga; Picture exclusive on Susan Hampshire's successor MAIL ON SUNDAY, April 13, 2003, Pg. 35, (319 words), Fidelma Cook Books McCann, Graham (2001). Dad's Army pp. ix–x. Pritchard, Maria (2014) I Told You I Was Ill: Famous Last Words and Astonishing Epitaphs Wilson, Scott (2016) Resting Places: The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons Berra, Paul (2016) Grave Tidings: An Anthology of Famous Last Words websites Bedford today Guardian IMDB Getty Images Amazon UK Amazon US Other Nimmo, Derek (January 2011). "Le Mesurier, John (1912–1983)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/31350.

I await further pointy time wasting comments and more spurious accusations. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I too am for the original wording. I suspect a touch of I don't like it from Escape Orbit. Cassianto^Talk 08:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What a pathetic waste of valuable editors' time by Escape Orbit! SchroCat has very sensibly quoted sources to back up the phrase, and I hope they will persuade Escape Orbit to abandon this irresponsible crusade with its puerile reductiones ad absurdum and subliterate essay ("its" does not = "it is"). If not, I think we ought collectively to consider what measures can be taken to stop attempts to peddle a personal obsession in the teeth of an established consensus. Tim riley talk 07:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You know, life's too short for this. You appear willing to throw up a flurry of spurious sources that don't answer my question and blatantly misrepresent what I've said to defend your article from any suggestion that it could be improved. I'll leave it as is, leading with a vague opinion rather than a fact. Here is another Latin phrase for you; Ad hominem. But thanks for spotting that typo, it evidently made someone very happy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing "spurious" about the weight of sources, and they misrepresent nothing - and the article reflects just that. I am sorry that you dislike a perfectly acceptable and useful phrase (albeit one that should be used with care), and there is nothing that you have suggested that could improve the article, and this whole roundabout thread could and should have stopped some time ago, when it was apparent that your crusade against a phrase is not applicable to all instances - as the sources provided show. Have fun editing, but please don't keep pushing when it's not needed, de gustibus and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Escape_Orbit. Firstly, it certainly is. Secondly, we are not willing to do any such thing. Thirdly, it is not "our" article, but we know what you meant. And finally, ad hominem? After all that? Ironically pointed out. Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Gosh, what a lot of energy over one phrase! Escape_Orbit was right though. --John (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

---

I haven't read all the above - I started and then skipped to the comment above, which seems to sum it up. 'Perhaps' is weak, and un-encyclopaedic, but SchroCat seems to be be starting an edit-war. Could we establish some consensus on the phrase please? Obscurasky (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Glad you finally managed to come here in between your edit warring. Given you say you have not bothered to read the thread, I'm not sure how you can ask to "establish some consensus" when one was reached in the thread you can't be bothered to read. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

First, don't be rude, and assume good-faith.

I have now read the above and, while there's not many contributors, consensus is that the article would be improved by dropping the word 'perhaps'. Was that your point? Obscurasky (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Rude? Don't be so tiresome - and my well of good faith runs dry when someone needlessly edit wars rather than using the talk page.

There is no such consensus and the word (and phrase) are supported by the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Glad you finally managed to come here in between your edit warring" = rude.

"Don't be so tiresome" = rude.

Like I said, please don't be rude, and assume good faith. You indicated that I needed to read this thread. I have, and the balance of opinion is that the article would be improved by removing the word 'perhaps'. And in any case, there's certainly no consensus to keep it, and so no valid reason for you to revert my good-faith edit. Incidentally, I don't believe changing 'perhaps' to 'probably' qualifies as a 'clear attempt to try a modified solution' and three bold reverts puts you in violation of the 3RR policy.

I think it's best to leave it for a while to see if anyone else would like to contribute to this discussion, but I do think it's important to understand that everyone here has an equal right to make edits to this page. Obscurasky (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring = rude

Accusing someone of edit warring when you are the one that started it = rude

You can cut out the personalisation of the comments and try and focus on the matter in hand and you can also assume good faith. There was a good reason to revert. It was stated in the edit summary, summarised in the thread and has been repeated since: it is a valid statement that is backed up by the sources and the talk page consensus.

Yes, everyone has a right to make edits, but people also have the right to revert if is isn’t an improvement, which is what happened here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:Featured Article. The FA reviewers thought the phrase appropriate, and the sources support it. I agree with SchroCat. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers, but further up you wrote "I am sure that he is best remembered for the role" - so why do you want to retain the word perhaps? What's wrong with "best remembered for...."? Obscurasky (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

My belief is WP:OR, but "perhaps" and "probably" are well-supported by the sources listed above and reflect the leeway on the point that they express. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What sources? Obscurasky (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The ones above, as both he and I have said. In a bit of OR, Le Mez has been portrayed three times on screen. Only one was about Dad’s Army. The other two were on other aspects of his life. For some people he is remembered as a film actor, for others as his part in Dads Army.

The “perhaps best remembered” wording was passed at FAC just over ten years ago. That’s a strong consensus to overturn, particularly when it’s backed up by the sources, and needs more than you just wanting it to be so to change it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"The ones above" - perhaps I'm not being clear.

Ssilvers believes "perhaps" and "probably" are well-supported by the sources (listed above). I don't have access to the sources, but I would like to know which ones include the word 'perhaps' or 'probably'? I suspect the majority don't, and simply state 'best remembered'. If that is the case, they would actually support the argument that such a qualification is unnecessary. Obscurasky (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"they would actually support the argument that such a qualification is unnecessary": no, they wouldn't. If there is a degree of uncertainty on a point of opinion, we should include that. I think this is an increasingly pointless waste of time given you won't accept the consensus is against you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make this personal. It's nothing to do with whether consensus is for or against 'me', it's about whether or not consensus exists for including the qualification 'perhaps'. The balance of opinion in this thread is that the article would be improved by dropping the word, and you have not offered any evidence that the use of such a qualification is supported by a majority of sources either. What you have done is to be rude to me, reverted my good-faith edit in violation of both WP:BRD and WP:3RR and demonstrated a significant degree of ownership behaviour. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I think it's best to leave this where it is for a while, to see if anyone else would like to contribute. That's not a 'pointless waste of time', it's is the right and proper thing to do and, in the best interests of this article, you should respect that. Obscurasky (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not making it personal. There is a consensus (from PR, FAC and the last ten years of it being there). If you want to talk "being personal", you have edit warred and are now accusing me of ownership: that's bollocks. Just because an edit is in good faith doesn't mean it is inviolate: it was not an improvement so it was reverted. The sentence reflects the fact that there are numerous sources that allow a degree of flexibility and doubt. If you can't accept that there is flexibility in the sources and that not everyone or every source shares your opinion, that's tough. Your edit summary of "I wouldn't have thought anyone would dispute the claim" is enough to demonstrate that this is not about sources but only based on your personal opinion. The consensus is against you and you have shown nothing that demonstrates it should be overturned. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur with SchroCat both as to the cited facts and the spin put on them, above. Tim riley talk 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers.com clippings

@SchroCat: A minor detail, but what is the issue with including "via=Newspapers.com" and the free access logo () in the citation details for the clippings I added? --Muzilon (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Because they're pointless. We presume all access is free unless it has the (subscription required) tag after it. - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

“It’s all been rather lovely”

The article claims these were Le Mesurier’s last words. It’s supported by a citation, but I suspect it’s an urban myth. In the documentary Dad’s Army: Secret Lives & Scandals, Le Mesurier’s wife, Joan, appears on camera and emphatically states that his last words were “I’m fed up of it now”. Obscurasky (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is supported by numerous sources, only one of which is used to avoid citebombing the article. If you think the information you have seen is different, feel free to add in a correctly formatted footnote to say there is an alternative version. You do not get to decide which source you want to appear - the weight of sources support what is there at present. Joan Le Mes was the one who previously said "It’s all been rather lovely" were John's last words, which is why the 2012 BBC documentary (in which she was heavily involved) was called exactly that.2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:25A4:9D2A:A3B9:B587 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The words, as far as I can remember from when I wrote the article in the first place, also appear in Dear John, her autobiography. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:25A4:9D2A:A3B9:B587 (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, although not exactly polite, when you say "You do not get to decide which source you want to appear" - but that isn't what I was suggesting. No one owns this article and just so we're clear, no one's edits carry more weight by virtue of their previous edit history here either.

So let's stick to the point;

I added the 'dubious' tag because I think there is sufficient reason to think the article's account of Le Mesurier's last words is an urban myth. You are wrong when you say that Joan Le Mesurier said, in the documentary It’s All Been Rather Lovely, that these were John's last words. To be precise (and this is an encyclopaedia) she said "almost the very very last thing he said to me before he went into a coma was .....". In the documentary Dad’s Army: Secret Lives & Scandals, however, Joan does state that his last words were “I’m fed up of it now”. This is more than sufficient to justify the 'dubious; tag, but if you're not happy with that, I'm sure there's a suitable form of words that takes the above into account. Please feel free to make that edit, or I'm happy to do it myself if you prefer. Obscurasky (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not claimed that anyone has any more weight than anyone else - and that includes you. You may not think it polite, but that's the drawback of a printed medium. My point was that you don't get to decide and nor does any individual, but the guidelines state that the sources are key, and we have quoted a solid source, and can add a pile more, including ... Joan Le Mesurier.

I think you should read a little more closely: I did not say that Joan had said anything in a documentary. I have said the documentary was called "It's all been rather lovely" and that she was heavily involved in it. What I actually said, and I'll repeat here: The words, as far as I can remember from when I wrote the article in the first place, also appear in Dear John, her autobiography." If there were a few extra words after that (and I can't remember if there were or not), I think it would be a bit pedantic to say 'they weren't his last words - there were six others after it', particularly when these are the ones he is best known to have said. If you can source the exact phrase to a printed source then it could be added as a footnote, but that would not be useful or helpful to anyone in my view. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3911:184A:50BA:FA8E (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Dying words" might satisfy the objection, above, although "last words" seems fine to me. Tim riley talk 09:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not "dubious" at all. There may be a source that disputes the statement and is significant enough to footnoote, but WP:WEIGHT says that we should follow the majority of the sources, particularly contemporary sources when witnesses' memories were fresh. If you tagged every statement as "dubious" where there was a disagreeing source, you'd tag millions of statements in Wikipedia. That tag should be reserved for situations where sources are unclear and it is likely that the statement made is false. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive contributions. My objection to the current format is not simply that these weren't his actual last words, but that they're not an accurate account of what was said - or at least what was reportedly said.

I've just read the relevant section in Dear John and there Joan recalls him saying "I'm fed up of it, darling. It's all been rather lovely, but I would like to go now". It is implied, although not actually stated, that these were his last words. If this account is correct (and she was the only one there it seems) I imagine that many of the references to his last words cherry-picked that one section because it paints a romanticised picture of his passing. That's not an acceptable reason to do the same here.

I'd be happy to see the whole sentence used here, although Dear John is a primary source and not ideal as a reference. It might be acceptable if the sentence was prefaced with something like "his wife Joan reported that his last word were...."? Obscurasky (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We have numerous secondary sources that back this up. “last words”, “dying words” are always slightly flexible on words said in the last few moments (as opposed to the screams and calls for the nurse as the actual last words). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A9AE:5E50:AA75:E3E5 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your response. Are you saying you have a secondary source for the whole sentence, or just the cherry-picked romanticised bit? Obscurasky (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

......I haven’t said anything of the sort. I just don’t understand the need for the pointyness in your comments. At the moment, there isn’t really a consensus to change much (aside, possibly, from mooted alternative “last words” to “dying words”). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:BD5C:6704:C8A3:9D21 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what it was that you were saying, but then the absence of politeness hasn't been the only shortcoming of your responses to me. I think we have reached an impasse here. My view is that an opportunity exists to provide a more accurate account of Le Mesurier's last/final words; your view is that we should stick to the abridgement used by many authors - I imagine because they felt is painted a more romanticised picture of his passing. I just don't understand why you're so entrenched on this point, but you're clearly not going to change your mind and it'll be easier for everyone to end this debate now. Obscurasky (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's true that his dying words as reported by his wife were "I'm fed up of it, darling. It's all been rather lovely, but I would like to go now", then we should say all of that; selecting "It's all been rather lovely" seems to me to convey a much rosier meaning than the fuller quotation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This was the article which inspired me to take Wikipedia more seriously back when it was first FA back in 2013. Very well written and referenced and engaging about its subject, who I knew, but not in much depth. Saddens me to come back here and see such ill-natured discussion about quite reasonable suggestions for small incremental changes. FWIW, I think the "it's all been rather lovely" quote should be the main one given in the text, given its ubiquity and narrative impact (whether or not it's an urban myth) but a footnote with the fuller quote would be useful, as Obscurasky is likely right - it's been selected in repeated sources to present a romanticised picture. But either way, I don't think there needs to be quite so much bad blood about this or the equally reasonable perspectives above about an infobox and "perhaps best remembered". Peaky76 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

“I’m fed up of it, darling. It’s all been rather lovely, but I would like to go now.” Ref: “Dear John” by Joan Le Mesurier (2001) DavidGedze (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Humour and joking

Back in the 1970's I remember hearing one of his friends on TV or radio, perhaps Harry Fowler or another, say that Le Mesurier was known as a joker with an active sense of humour, so much so that to them he was also known as John Le Meshuggeneh. But I cannot find a source for it so just leave a note here in case somebody else knows more. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:7035:7DA9:4163:BDB5 (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)