Talk:Roy Jay

Vandalism

Can someone keep an eye or block this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.3.64.239 he keeps making annoying edits and leaving death-threats on this talk-page and my talk-page.

--Not-Roy-Jay (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The Main Attraction

Note: was a real show, but does not yet have a wiki page on it.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0494608/

He is being memed

So I made this account, after not editing wikipedia for oh about 12 years, because some people on a discord server are trying to turn this guy into a meme. Basically they are pretending someone is using AI to create a fake comedian (yeah long story). After doing a few searches on Google Books and the Internet Archive, I discovered there are indeed some sources on his life, more then just the newspapers, most notably two books, that I just ordered via my local library :) those sources are the Radio Times guide to TV comedy (1998) and "Forgotten Heroes of Comedy An Encyclopedia of the Comedy Underdog (2021)", so it might be a good thing that we add more non-internet sources and non-newspaper sources to this article. Just to annoy those people. I will not be writing (much) on this article, because ESL. --Not-Roy-Jay (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

i did see a thread on /x/ a while back with a screencap of this wiki article, actually noticed a grammatical mistake in the wiki screencap so i ended up editing it lol. doing gods work here, son -haspsyokes (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The typos..

we can't even fix it, there's so many strange grammar and typos. Ugh 109.78.179.127 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

HTML Tag Residue

Can someone fix/remove the trailing </ref> in the last line of the Conspiracy section 116.50.84.116 (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: rumors of non-existence

While it has been covered here in the talk page previously the question of whether or not the meme should be mentioned in the article has not been covered. Not to say the statements are true (they are laughably untrue) but Category:Internet memes introduced in 2025 seems to think it's notable enough for inclusion. So I put it to the Wikipedia public, is this notable enough for inclusion or should it be excluded. PaxAeterna72 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be covered. See WP:UNDUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bastun I'd argue that a conspiracy based on the man after his death, covered by several reliable secondary sources would be notable enough for inclusion in the article. nobody here is suggesting that those rumours are true, which would be the case for WP:UNDUE satsuma^talk_(she/they) 05:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:DENY. This is literally a bunch of trolls from 4chan. We are not going to reward them by acknowledging them in the article, especially when several of them are actively engaged in threatening Wikipedia editors. (There are rev-del'ed comments on this talk page, and others). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bastun that is a very good resource. I can see why listing it would likely encourage further vandalism so makes sense not to. I wasn't aware of the page history to that level so find myself agreeing here satsuma^talk_(she/they) 12:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the rumor was started by trolls on 4chan, but it's beginning to spread to other platforms, and ignoring the claims only make them appear more credible to those who visit this page only seeking the truth. I first encountered the conspiracy on YouTube and some of the videos attempt to present it in a credible way. It wasn't until I did my own research that I discovered all of the holes. Your aversion to giving attention to trolls may only serve to fan the flames of this conspiracy theory. The thing that makes this different from many other conspiracies is that a vast majority of people researching Roy Jay only have knowledge of him because of the conspiracy. While some people are determined to believe what they want regardless of where facts lead, there are also many who come here sincerely looking for answers. Adding a section that briefly lays out the conspiracy, the source, their claims, and the evidence refuting it, would go a long way to shutting down this theory for good. Especially since these trolls are presenting a doctored screenshot of this very article as one of their pieces of "evidence". When it's all laid bare any open minded observer can see just how far-fetched this theory truly is. Q.Hemlock (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Q.Hemlock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That would lead to "Ha, we got them to change the article! Right, what'll we do next - a footballer? Maybe a building?" The few people who come here to find out if the late Mr Jay was real or not can read what the references say about him. We won't be including a posthumous conspiracy theory section, in the same way Apollo 11 doesn't include a section on the supposed fake nature of the moon landing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The anticipated reaction of some loser trolls should have absolutely NO influence on the article's content. These articles don't exist to satisfy or irritate trolls, they exist to neutrally, dispassionately, and accurately inform the public writ large and preserve this information for posterity's sake. And the slippery slope argument is not valid here, as editors are in perpetual control of these slopes, so they'll never be any more slippery than editors allow them to be, regardless of what you choose to do here. This is different from the Moon landing, as the moon landing has tons of organic interest, unrelated to any conspiracy theory, while I would make an informed guess that the vast majority of people searching for and reading this article today are only doing so because they were exposed to the conspiracy theory. IMHO, posterity demands acknowledging that the 2025 Roy Jay renaissance is directly linked to this easily debunked conspiracy theory that he never existed. But I don't know, maybe I'm just being naive, but I'll always probably believe that the best way to fight back against misinformation is to concisely and dispassionately acknowledge and refute it. Q.Hemlock (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

If you can find WP:RS that describe or debunk this theory, it might be included in the article. Otherwise, it's WP:UNDUE. -insert valid name here- (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Nope, not even then. WP:DENY. And even if that didn't apply, WP:UNDUE would still apply. The existence of sources still doesn't mean something should be included. See WP:10YEARTEST, for example. As mentioned above, we don't even cover "The moon landing was faked!" conspiracy theory on Apollo 11. We certainly won't be covering this puerile shite here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. @Bastun recently reverted my edit adding this, citing WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE (not relevent, the hoax is currently the main thing that comes up when Googling him), WP:10YEARTEST (seems to be about event notability) and WP:DENY (about Wikipedia vandalism, which this is not). Bastun told me to see the talk page, but looking at it only shows that most people seem to agree that the information should be added. It seems based on past discussed her that the consensus it that the hoax should be added. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, in this thread we have @PaxAeterna72 @Sksatsuma @Q.Hemlock and myself supporting this being added, @-insert valid name here- being a “maybe with reliable sources” and only @Bastun being a no. I have re-added the text for now until consensus changes. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Add me as another "no" then. Measuring consensus is more than just numerics, PaxAeterna72 and Q.Hemlock are WP:SPA and should have their input weighed accordingly. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

And @Sksatsuma changed their mind. Remove the two SPAs who have four edits between them and it's, well, you, @User:Notcharizard, for inclusion, and one "maybe". Please see WP:ONUS. But I'd prefer if took WP:UNDUE and the spirit of WP:DENY on board. Literally the only people, bar you, arguing for inclusion, are the people from 4chan. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Add me to the 'no's as well per WP:UNDUE. ... discospinster _talk 16:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! I missed the changed mind, and thanks for clarifying @Discospinster :) 03:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC) -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

All good! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm obviously late to this, but generally consensus isn't decided by a majority vote per WP:NOTAVOTE GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 03:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Late reply but I'm actually neither here nor there, just wanted to float the idea. PaxAeterna72 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Forgotten Heroes of Comedy

I recently made an edit where I said Forgotten Heroes of Comedy appeared to be a less reliable source than Comedy Chronicles, and adjusted some information accordingly. This has been contested by 212.56.120.79 in this edit, where they said "I didn't see a justification for why the Robert Ross book is not a reliable source." and re-added some information from that source, so I'd like to provide some comparisons and invite others to weigh in on assessing reliability.

Both sources cover the incident of Roy Jay exposing himself to an audience, but with vastly differing amounts of detail and confidence:

Forgotten Heroes of Comedy

Allegedly, during one post-booze-up appearance Jay was so out of it that he dragged out his huge throbber onstage, in front of the audience. The universal cry of "You'll never work again" rang out across the industry and, to all intents and purposes, he didn't.

Comedy Chronicles

Late on Wednesday evening, 29th August 1984, during an appearance at the plush Inn on the Park club in Jersey ... It started when some members of the six-hundred-strong audience ... began heckling him loudly ...

There was also a photographer who, for some unknown reason, had been given permission by the venue's management to roam around close to the front of the stage taking pictures during the act ...

(someone shouted 'Get 'em off!'), he dropped his trousers and (as he was not wearing any underpants) exposed himself. ... Among the shocked audience were two off-duty police officers ...

There is an image in the article of a newspaper clipping of a headline saying: Roy's Strip Costs Him £200

He spent the night in a St Helier cell ... The following morning, at the local magistrates' court, he was fined £200. ...

Digging himself even deeper into a hole, he then proffered a poem about the incident: ...

Here the article quotes the entirety of a poem by Roy Jay about the incident, and goes on to further detail how Roy Jay kept working in the industry.

Both sources cover his work with a one "Sticky Vicky", and give differing dates here:

Forgotten Heroes of Comedy

Jump-cut nearly twenty years to 2005 and poor Roy Jay was eking out a living in the bars and clubs of Benidorm ... During these thankless days he regularly appeared as support for a very special speciality act who called herself Sticky Vicky. Now, this young lady became something of a legend thanks to her ability to squeeze out ping-pong balls and pull flags of all nations from her love tunnel.

Comedy Chronicles

By the late 1980s, now based in Benidorm, he had settled into a residency first at The Talk of the Coast and then at the nearby Chaplin's Bar, using 'bluer' material, while sometimes also providing support, so to speak, for a ping-pong ball-propelling erotic dancer - hailed as 'legendary' among some sun-struck ex-pats - by the name of Sticky Vicky at the Red Lion and numerous other venues in the area.

And both sources cover his birth and death, giving different years with differing levels of detail for each:

Forgotten Heroes of Comedy

Birth: Not listed in prose, no details of birth are given, the birth year is only listed as the start year of a range listed underneath Jay's name: 1949-2008

Death: It was a particularly ignoble end for Roy Jay: though the exact date of his death is unknown, his body was found towards the end of 2008, several weeks after booze had taken its ultimate revenge. A local businessman and friend of Jay’s paid the burial costs.

Comedy Chronicles

Birth: Born in Oslo in 1948, as Roy Jørgensen, to a Norwegian father and a mother who described herself as 'Scottish/Irish', the family moved to South Wales when he was four. ...

Death: He died in Alicante in December 2007, alone and penniless, aged just fifty-nine. His funeral was paid for by money raised by his many friends and admirers in the local area.

There are numerous other aspects which can be compared between the two, and in each the Chronicles is clearly better researched. Where the two conflict I believe full weight should be given to the Chronicles. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to Talk in such a civilised way.

To clarify my uncertainty, the Comedy Chronicles source is more detailed on some points, but more detailed does not mean more reliable. Nor does more confidence on the part of the writer. However, I don't know how Wikipedia handles the evaluation of sources' reliability when they conflict. Based on other pages with conflicting dates of birth, it seems that both are cited.

Published books seem more reliable than websites. Moreover, the Comedy Chronicles does not contain details like Roy Jay opening for Johnny Mathis on the latter's UK 1983 tour, Roy Jay's 1984 single "Spooky Love", and his 1982 self-titled album.

I checked another published book that mentions Roy Jay, Jimmy Jones's classic autobiography "Now This is a Very True Story" (2011) written with the great and highly respected Gary Bushell. Jones disagrees with both sources, in that he traces Roy Jay's downfall to him being "found coked-up on an ad shoot and he was deep in the shh… you know what. Schweppes cancelled his contract. Chic was furious and Roy, who always liked to get legless, ended up with all of his limbs broken." Jones doesn't mention the Jersey scandal, which is otherwise only traceable to a single regional newspaper in Reading (a place in England near Aldershot and Bracknell). Since Jimmy Jones knew Roy Jay personally and even lived with him when Roy Jay became homeless (during the period when Roy Jay was barred from Pontins for fighting and for his girlfriend stealing drinks) it seems like Jones's book casts doubt on the historical reliability of both the Comedy Chronicles and Robert Ross book. 212.56.120.79 (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I've now read Now This is a Very True Story and they don't seem to disagree. Both agree that Jay did ad work for Schweppes, that issues with drug use intruded into his work, and that Jay showed up to an ad shoot "coked-up" or "worse for wear".

Jones provides a specific end to the ad era "Schweppes cancelled his contract", while the Chronicles doesn't and instead provides an example of a time where Jay was unfit to work: "as the booze began to intrude into his work, he began to acquire a reputation for unreliability. A scheduled advert for Smiths crisps, for example, was scrapped when he arrived more than a little worse for wear ..."

These are compatible statements. Judging a specific moment of a "downfall" is a somewhat subjective task, and I think Jones characterizing the moment Jay's problems with drug use lost him a million pound deal as being when he "ended up with all of his limbs broken" is reasonable. I don't believe Jones failing to surface the Jersey incident means the two sources are in dispute either.

Interestingly Jones also gives a December 2007 date of death, but didn't strongly attribute a place: "He was last heard of living over in Benidorm working the clubs, but sadly he died in December 2007." Again this doesn't appear to be strictly contradictory, both Jones and the Chronicles state Jay based out of Benidorm, and while Jones doesn't explicitly state a place of death, the Chronicles states it was in Alicante which is only 43 km away.

Jones' account appears good to me, and if anything makes the Chronicles appear even stronger and Forgotten Heroes of Comedy weaker. However Jones' account is WP:PRIMARY and should be afforded less weight.

"more detailed does not mean more reliable" – Agreed, but in this case I think the Chronicles has also demonstrably been more successful with their research into Jay, that is a reason why I chose to compare coverage of the exposure incident, the Chronicles provides a contemporary newspaper headline which helps show that they've done their research and aren't simply spinning a yarn. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You make some good points and I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but as far as I know we shouldn't be choosing among secondary sources by assessing their comparative reliability based on our own research. It seems that policy on other pages is to include what both sources say, unless e.g. there's a scholarly consensus that one is unreliable. 212.56.120.79 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It's a judgement call based on assessing if a source is reliable and what WP:WEIGHT should be afforded it. I think that Forgotten Heroes of Comedy isn't reliable for information surrounding Jay's death for the reasons I've stated above. Would like some other editors to weigh in so we can form consensus here.

@Bastun, Notcharizard, Discospinster, -insert valid name here-, Q.Hemlock, Sksatsuma, PaxAeterna72, Haspsyokes, and Not-Roy-Jay: you've all been active on this talk page somewhat recently, any thoughts? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

(I'm the same anon user as earlier.) On balance, and having looked into it again, everything in the Robert Ross seems to be taken from online sources that were available via Googling around 2020. Ross makes it clear that he never met Roy Jay, nor are there any definite signs that he ever talked to anyone who met Roy Jay. Even the conflict in dates of birth / death can be explained by how there weren't online reports of Jay's death (I think on a travel website) plus his age, until 2008.

So, although I'm still not sure of the procedure, I would not be opposed to removing all the Robert Ross information that's not corroborated by a reliable source. ~2025-37400-26 (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Made changes in Special:Diff/1325034338, where unsupported or in conflict I've removed Forgotten Heroes of Comedy, and I've added Now This is a Very True Story as an additional ref for the time of death. Please let me know if anything in the edit looks unsound.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Great, that looks good now. I went through almost every newspaper article mentioning Roy Jay and while are some minor details on the page that I'm unsure about (the naval service, the significance of the Jersey incident which was actually only mentioned in one local newspaper in Reading etc.) I'm actually quite confident that the page is now mostly accurate. ~2025-37400-26 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to the britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk to verify the navy claims, but glad things are looking improved otherwise. Thank you for the civil discussion. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Roy Jay until I came across his name in Robert Ross's Forgotten Heroes of Comedy, which I have in front of me and which I'm using to make edits to other articles on comedians. Obviously I hadn't come across this thread either. The book is mostly reliable, I think, though it certainly contains errors (for example, giving entirely incorrect birth and death dates for the comedian Tom E. Murray, based on a mis-identification with another actor, Tom Murray). So far as Roy Jay is concerned, Ross states that he was born in Uffculme, Devon, for which again I think there is no evidence, and states that "though the exact date of his death is unknown, his body was found towards the end of 2008". (On Ancestry.com, there is a profile for a Robert Jee, who died in Uffculme in 2010, though perhaps this is a coincidence.)

There is more information at FindaGrave about Roy Jay. This gives his birth name as Roy Emory Jørgensen, born in Oslo, Norway, on 18 June 1948, and died "peacefully at home in November 2007 after battling stomach cancer". Another part of that page refers to his death on 8 December 2007. I know that FindaGrave is largely user-generated and not a WP:RS - but at least part of that page may well be true, as it gives details of his wife (Susan E. Wagner Jorgensen, 1950-2003), suggesting some direct family involvement. Anyway, though it's all interesting, I won't edit the article on that basis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)