Talk:Sid James

message: Sid James came to live in Britain in 1946- when he was 32 or 33. Surely that makes him a South African and not merely "South African born" ? I'm changing it unless someone has a really good reason why it should stay the way it is...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.16.3 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did he acquire British citizenship? Jim Michael (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: South Africa was at the time of his birth a part of the British Empire and so Sid James would have automatically been born a British Subject. So in answer to your question, he would have been both British and South African. He wouldn't have needed to acquire British citizenship as he already possessed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been recently adjusted once more. What is correct?  Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: South African not "South African born"

message: I remeber tell that as a result of his antics with Barbera Windsor (on and possibly off screen) he angered one of the Kray twins (the one Windsor was involved with). As a result he broke into James' home and moved things about to ward him off). Anyone care to mention this?--Crestville 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the this sentence -- "James's obsession with Barbara Windsor was such that it led to his returning home one day to find that all of the furniture had been rearranged" -- in reference to Charlie Kray, then?  I ask because that sentence makes no sense as it stands, but I know nothing about Sid James and could not possibly edit this myself.  Perhaps someone who works on the article can clear this up. Clockster (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Krays 

message: This subject has come up a number of times, most recently with Ernest Borgnine. The problem is that we must have a way of verifying if the information concerning James's birth name is correct. Without that, it cannot be changed. Personal research cannot be used because it is nonverifiable. See WP:NOR. Hope this helps. --Mantanmoreland 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found a website called "Screenonline" that appears to be reliable and does say that James's birth name was "Cohen." It does not provide the other names stated by the unknown user. Again, they would need to be verified but I think that you can say that his birth name was "Cohen" based on this, and cite this source. There may be others. Halliwell's film guide has nothing.--Mantanmoreland 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I found another, this time referring to a "Sidney Joel Cohen."  Seems to be stuff out there.--Mantanmoreland 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nndb takes user submissions. I wouldn't rely on it to be 100% accurate. As for the other source, there is an encyclopedia mentioned at the end. Brian McFarlane, Encyclopedia of British Film. Perhaps if that was their source it can be checked.--Crossmr 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC response

message: Later it was rumoured that Sid James's ghost haunted the dressing room he occupied on the night of his death. After one experience during a gig there, the comedian Les Dawson refused to play the venue again. He never revealed why and would not talk on the subject....
Not that I want to be nitpicky, but if Dawson never revealed why he refused to play the venue again, and would not talk on the subject, then how does anyone know that it had anything to do with Dawson seeing Sid James' ghost? SimonUK (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall seeing a TV documentary about Sid James where his wife (I beleive) commented that when the doctor told him to give up brandy and cigarettes he did... and replaced them with whisky and cigars. (83.13.39.98 (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health 

message: You should add 'Carry On Regardless' -  one of the better ones, in fact. 217.39.92.55 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carry-on films with Kenneth Williams 

message: James's alleged obsession with Windsor was such that it was said he returned to his home one day to find that all of the furniture had been rearranged, and on another occasion that her husband of the time, Ronnie Knight, had put an axe in his floor.
: I struggle to make sense of this, particularly the first part.  What is the connection between a passion he had for Barbara Windsor, and his furniture being rearranged?  Who rearranged it - his wife?  Did she know about the affair?  I just don't get any of this.  Can some kind soul help out here?  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've worked it out and fixed it. Anglicanus (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your edits, but I'm none the wiser.  Seriously.  If you were having an affair, would you expect to come home one day to find all your furniture rearranged?  And if you did find that that had occurred, what construction would you put on it?  Wouldn't you assume your wife/partner had just had a whim?  There's something missing here that links the affair with the furniture rearrangement.  Something the writer has taken for granted, but which they have completely failed to transmit to at least this reader.  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 18:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume it's intending to suggest that by rearranging the furniture in someone's home while they are out, you are demonstrating that you have free access to the place where they live and sleep, and that they should not feel safe there. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, are we suggesting that Barbara Windsor's husband found out about the affair she was having with Sid James, and decided to rearrange his furniture while he was out, as some kind of warning to him to keep his hands off his wife?  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something like that; it may just have been him threatening James not to take his "obsession" any further. I don't have a copy of the source, though. --McGeddon (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Very odd sentence

message: There is an obvious mistake in the article regarding the characters named "Sidney" which appear in these films. Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond is absolutely not "the scarlet pimpernel" character from "Carry On Don't Lose Your Head" that character was called "Sir Rodney Ffing/The Black Fingernail". The "Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond" character is surely one of the best known SJ creations appearing in "Carry On Up The Khyber". 92.26.96.157 12:06, 28 August 2013‎ (UTC)
: Corrected. Philip Cross (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carry On films namesake mistakes 

message: I have reverted a user for their inaccurate category addition of "British Comedians of the 20th Century", or something like that. I disagree, they don't.  Unfortunately, the editor in question seems to think that it is more appropriate to discuss this at ANI rather than using this talk page, something that they should've done per WP:BRD. I will not discuss this at the boards and will instead discuss the changes here. 
I disagree with the descriptor "comedian" for James.  James was not a comedian, but a comedy actor. This is also omitted from the lead so the category should not be added, in my opinion.  CassiantoTalk 17:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends upon what the sources say. This obit calls him a "comic actor," which is the way I would put it. But in this biography he is called "one of the best known comedians of his day but he never told a joke" or ad-libbed. Seems to me that if he didn't tell jokes he's not a comedian. Same for the other "carry-on" actors. On balance I'd omit unless the sourcing is consistent. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you on this, .  , when you've quite finished entertaining the peanut gallery at ANI, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this. I won't hold my breath. CassiantoTalk 18:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not entering into discussion here until the matter of your abuse toward me is satisfactorily resolved. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So let me get this right:  refusing to engage in a conversation you should have started here in order to continue a related conversation elsewhere in the hope that your POV gets enforced by having me blocked? Genius.  Well, I'm off to do some good somewhere, unlike you, it seems, so when you've satisfied your jollies, maybe we can discuss how actually to improve the encyclopaedia. CassiantoTalk 18:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: We should go with what the sources say. Thanks Coretheapple for looking into it. It's probably better to leave it out until someone can produce a few sources claiming otherwise. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr PaleCloudedWhite seems to be enjoying himself far too much at All Narcissists Invited to take part in a discussion about how best to come to a compromise, so I guess it's up to the rest of us. Good to see you,  :) CassiantoTalk 18:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In this rather interesting article,[] the Telegraph desribe him as a character actor, and actually discusses him with great seriousness in some of his lesser-known roles. Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  On a side note, I hope they're not calling The Lavender Hill Mob "weird".  It was a stand out film among James' pre-Carry On stuff.  CassiantoTalk 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: (ec) Nah, I think that was under the article title criteria of 'Best' ;) Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank god!  This was a good, underrated little gem from the early '60s.  I still have it on DVD somewhere, I think. CassiantoTalk 19:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I just saw him in The Small Back Room, which just was run on US cable under its American title, and his role in that is clearly not "comedian." Again, though, it's not our call. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: The comedy cats are a complete bloody mess. Irondome (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories are sometimes a source of unnecessary drama and this is one such occasion. James is on the cusp between comedian and comic actor, and it would be no great horror to call him either. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Deffo, Domey. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's widespread Martin, all over the site. And the comedy-related lists are crap too. Totally often contradict, duplicate, et bloody cetera. Irondome (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Et bloody cetera", surely? ... yours (with Sid's ashes onboard), "Bloody Delilah" (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I see that there's a category for the Goulders Green Crematorium. Well, I guess you either utilized its services or you didn't. Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Looking forward to :Category:Dead Jewish comedians. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see it now. British Jewish comedians who plan on getting cremated at Golders Green crematorium. Tut. Irondome (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Please keep this small urn as a token of my infectious smallness. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Johnuniq, if you take a quick look at his Talk page you'll see that PaleCloudedWhite has now resigned. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Do Americans get round this a bit by using the word "comic" (at least more than British people do)? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of comedian appears to allow for it to be defined as: A comic actor - an actor who plays comic roles - an actor in comedy and comedian also appears to be synonymous with comic/comedy actor: comic...comedy actor. And from the refs used in this article that I could access: comedian - comedy actor - comedian. Other sources: British Comedian, British Comedian, comedian, actor, comic actor, and in the article Sid James filmography, comedian is used. Personally, I don't see that much of a distinction between the two: comedy actor vs. comedian. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That all looks quite convincing. I suspect that lately (past 20+ years?), in the UK at least, the word "comedian" has become more synonymous with "stand-up comedian" i.e. someone who essentially tells jokes. But I can offer no sources in support of this view. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the new reference just added to the first line of the article, there is this quote from Sid James himself: "Comedy is hard work and I am not really a comedian…I need funny people around me to get the best out of myself." Blurryman (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Sid James a "comedian"?  

message: :"According to rumour, Sid had an affair with the daughter of an important member of Johannesburg society; his decision to move away from South Africa was partly because he was "advised" to leave due to the possible controversy.[citation needed]" has been languishing for 2 years with a cite needed tag. Apart from maybe raising a mild chuckle in some, and as a pointer to Sid's attraction to the ladies, or the other way round, it seems to have no major advantage. If anything is ever found, we can stick it back in. Any colleagues feel it should be kept? Simon Adler (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at Sid James: A Biography by Cliff Goodwin and searched for "Meg Sergei"? It says "Her affair with Sid was enough to prompt Toots to file for divorce"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is this..hold the front page. This [] appears to have a completely different version of the rumour and appears to have masses of other info not in the article. The question is, is it a reliable and usable source? It is an article on Sid at the Tony Hancock Appreciation Society website. Ummm.. Simon Adler (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so in that version of events it's the unnamed pregnant hairdresser who was paid to leave the country. I came across that page earlier and thought that it should probably not be trusted. It doesn't even have a named author? That source tells us that he divorced Toots, but not when. It also tells that he married Meg, but not when. It just tells us that "In September 1945 Meg fell pregnant". But there seems to be a lot of basic material missing from the "Early life" section in our article. I'd suggest most could be sourced from the Goodwin book.  Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks Martin. The article is a good read but I doubt if it can be used..Simon Adler (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and cheers for the Goodwin link me old mucker..seems to have most of his early life detailed. The relevant section in our article could certainly be added to. From the dodgy article, one does get a sense of the importance, or dynamism of his early film career. Simon Adler (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's red hot, mate. I hate to think of this sort of book getting in the wrong hands. As soon as I've finished this, I shall recommend they ban it." .... TH. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: On the original question, I think the absence of a reliable citation is sufficient grounds for removing the entire "rumour" sentence. Also, the TTHAS article provides a different and perhaps more plausible explanation for his decision to move to the UK. Blurryman (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. Plausible yes, but is that source really usable? I'd rather stick with the Goodwin. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest the TTHAS article should be used as a source. Definitely agree with using Goodwin, which I now see (page 59) contains much the same information on that point, and a bit more. Blurryman (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'According to rumour..' 

message: He is a crook, and according to his wikipedia page "The accuracy of Rigelsford's reference work has been heavily disputed".
86.187.163.205 (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since his comment was clearly inaccurate, I cannot see any good reason why it was left in, rather than just deleted, so I've done that. Blurryman (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Adrian Rigelsford a reliable source?