Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Humphreys (pornographer)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 January 2020 [1] CORRECTION: FACBot was late running. Ian Rose actually closed the FAC on 30 December, 2019[2].

James Humphreys (pornographer)

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's recently gone through GA. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that the article says his middle name was "Williams", but his death index entry on Ancestry gives it as "William" and I notice that Clarkson, Gang Wars of London (2010; no idea of its reliability) also gives "William". (FYI, it looks like his father was one James Sidney Humphreys (1911–1990), variously a drayman and a porter, and his mother Alice Mary Ann, née Fisher (b. 1910), but I can't see this mentioned in a secondary source). —Noswall59 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Source review

edit
  • All sources are OK except some of the news sources. The amount of research that went into the article is impressive. Source checks TBD.
  • Evening Standard is no consensus for reliability. I would recommend backing up all info by a second source.
  • Sunday People is a tabloid that hasn't been discussed at RSN. I question whether it's reliable.buidhe 03:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • I'm not convinced that the newspaper meets the NFCC standard for contextual significance "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". What is it conveying that can't be indicated by text such as the fact that the story appeared on the front page of the newspaper, and the headline? Fair use newspaper covers are allowed, but usually only if the article is about the event reported in the news. This is different.
    • I think we're OK with this one: the impact of a front page is different from a a standard newspaper headline. As this is one of the key moments in his life (and in the breaking of the corruption in which he was involved), this needs to be in. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images OK. buidhe 03:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}—I don't think this is good practice per MOS:CURRENT. It sounds likely that the film is not likely to be made in the future, but if it were, we cannot guarantee that the Wikipedia page will stay updated indefinitely. Struck as resolved. buidhe 03:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can change to "as at 2019", if you prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

I peer reviewed the article (offline – I forget why) and my few quibbles were duly attended to then. Only one new one: in the "Attack on Peter Garfath" section, "Virgo and Moody were both given twelve year sentences" really needs a hyphen after "twelve". The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, being a splendid read, well sourced, evidently impartial, and as well illustrated as possible. I hope to restore some respectability to the FAC page shortly with a much-loved Archbishop of Canterbury, but for now am content to support the elevation of this arrant scoundrel to FA. Tim riley talk 12:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN43129

edit

Ah, pornomiester out-raving Raymond. Excellent. Now for the revue  ;)

Ouch!! - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly surprised at the lack, per WP:REDYES, of a link to Kenneth Drury, one of the most infamous coppers of the post-war years.
  • In 1964 one of Humphreys's clubs was a target for arson Which one? So far in the narrative, we've been told of only two, at OCS (latter Macclesfied St), and the Queen's.
  • The para Any sex shop opened in London by any pornographer... seems rather (generally) extraneous if you don't mind me saying. Lots of detail, none of it specifically about Humphreys. Except the last sentence. Of course, context is important, as I know I am far too keen on it myself.

Within the next three years Humphreys had between six and ten other sex shops operating. Any sex shop opened in London by any pornographer had to pay an opening bribe of between £500 to several thousand and a weekly bribe to the OPB, depending on the takings of the outlet The first three—opened on Lisle Street, Windmill Street and Newport Street—cost Humphreys and Silver £6,000 in payments to Moody. Between 1969 and 1972 Humphreys made £216,000 profit from his shops.{{fn=Some outlets, like one sex shop on Wardour Street, cost £150 a day in bribes...[through to]...as much as a purchaser was willing to pay}}

  • a coded message-any idea how? Telegram, word of mouth?
    Yep - now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a gangland figure annoyed at... Well, I'm sure annoying gangland figures went with the territory  :) Or something slightly more...emphatic? The kind of "annoyance" that results in one's leg getting done.
  • That particular map of Soho you use is annoying, "no higher resolution available", which is a shame when that means losing so much detail. Suggest swapping in this one, which shows the same area, the same level of detail, and which now—because it's well zoomable—is easily viewable.
  • He began a fundamental change of the force
  • Gilbert Kelland's Crime in London discusses the Garfath incident over a couple of pages.
  • He was part of an escape attempt from the prison that November; four men managed to escape. Can we avoid either of these escapes?
  • Could link framed. Slightly US-centric, but gives a British usage and some non-US notable examples. Likewise, there's an opportunity for a link to conspiracy around here.
  • Any details on how he got cheated, States-side?
  • In the notes, do you need to link Consumer Price Index five times? Indeed, how about bracketing (CPI) on first use and then the for the others you can just say "per CPI" or somesuch.

Incidentally, I second your use of The Sunday People (queried above) as a major source; since it was their investigation that resulted in the biggest corruption investigation ever, failure to have done so would probably be a 1c affair! Cheers, ——SN54129 15:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Cat, happy to support this fine piece. With fundamental change of the force, I think that could be phrased better, but am not altogther sure how. At the moment, it rather impies (IMHO) a physical, or structural change, whereas I think what's intended is more of a "fundamental chnage in the Force's ethos" or something?
Incidentally, Tr's bolded support—combined with that in the section header—above has confused the bot  :) ——SN54129 15:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Support from Graham Beards

edit

What a rogue, or should I say rogues? It's a pity that Drury − who literally got fat on his illegal earnings − doesn't have his own article yet. And it's a shame that the bot has reduced the Sunday People image to the point where the body text cannot be read, but ho hum. I have a few nitpicks:

  • Here: "about the payments to OPB" we have "the OPB" in every other instance.
  • Here: although in separate paragraphs, the repetition is clumsy "Rusty was released in late October.[67] In late October 1972, shortly after Rusty Humphreys was released from prison,"
  • There is an ugly fused participle here: "With corrupt officers being removed from Scotland Yard by Mark's actions," (not a big deal).
  • Here, this colloquialism might not be understood by some "Humphreys, tipped off that the police". In any case should it be "Humphreys, who(m) had been tipped off that the police".

Thank you for fascinating read and insight into what was going on a hundred miles down the M1 when I was walking my dog and dreaming about becoming an intellectual. Graham Beards (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Graham. All duly attended to with these edits, hopefully successfully. I'm always delighted to see your name pop up on my watchlist, and even more so when you're correcting my poor prose! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Graham Beards (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise

edit
  • Strip club and sex shop owner: "became frequented by fellow criminals". To me, "became frequented" feels awkward. Maybe just "was frequented" would suffice? Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The journalist Neil Root writes that the couple "tolerated each other, perhaps became friendly for a time", but were wary of one another." I think here "couple" is referring to Humphreys and Silver, but it's more common for the word to be in reference to a romantic relationship. And to add to the possible confusion "Humphreys and his wife" is also mentioned right before this. Could "couple" be reworded here? Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunday People investigation: "The SCS began a three-year investigation into the relationship between the OPB and the pornographers, of whom Silver, Humphreys and Eric Mason, an owner of ten sex shops, were key targets of the police." It may just be me, but I have trouble following how the second half of the sentence (starting with "of whom") relates to the first half. Could it be reworded? Moisejp (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attack on Peter Garfath: "there were some reports that she may have been threatening Humphreys with it at the time. Humphreys threatened to drop pornography over central London if she was not released, but did not follow through with his threat": Three instances of "threat" in short succession. Maybe consider rewording at least one of them. Moisejp (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was arrested because she and Humphreys rented a property in Greek Street to prostitutes." I would say "on Greek Street" here, but if this a case of regional differences of English, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historians Roger Davidson and Gayle Davis observe that in the early 1970s there was a backlash against the permissiveness of the 1960s that included organisations such as the Festival of Light, the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association and the Responsible Society." I'm not sure whether "the backlash... included organisations" is as clear as would be ideal. Also is it possible the current wording could be read as meaning that the organisations were included in the permissiveness (i.e., were part of the problem)? Maybe relatively clear from the context, but might be better if the wording could be tightened to remove any grammatical ambiguity. Moisejp (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting and well-written article. I don't know whether I'll have time to get on Wikipedia again in the next few days or so, so I'm changing to support now, with the hope you'll have a chance to tweak the sentence I mentioned just above. The only other minor comment I have is about the paragraph that begins "The second trial of members of the OPB began..." I found the following wording just slightly repetitive: "He said... He told the court... Humphreys said... he stated". Maybe if the sentence order could be shaken up just a bit... although I don't have any specific ideas, so if you find this comment hard to address, it's not a deal-breaker. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Fowler&fowler

edit

These comments concern only the lead, the first half, in fact. I have purposely avoided looking at the rest of the article, except the early life section. I may come back to finish the lead if I find the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Williams Humphreys (7 January 1930 – September 2003)

  • Sentence 1: ... was an operator of adult book shops and strip clubs in London in the 1960s and 1970s.
    • "Operator" has the specific meaning of a person or (these days) a company that runs an enterprise. It is not clear who the owner was. That probably does need to be said.
      • That is one, rather narrow, definition; it certainly does not preclude ownership. But to keep the peace I'll change to owner-operator, although it's something of a backwards step for the opening line. - SchroCat (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course. It doesn't preclude ownership (e.g. OED: A person (professionally) engaged in performing the practical or mechanical operations of a process, business, ...Webster's Unabridged, "a person that actively operates a business (such as a mine, a farm, or a store) whether as owner, lessor, or employee;"), but there are important differences between those categories of operators. If he were an employee, the story would be a little different. The new version that I'm seeing now is much better. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 2: He was able to operate in business through the payment of large bribes to serving policemen, particularly those from the Obscene Publications Branch (OPB) of the Metropolitan Police Force.
    • "Operate," intransitive, is a confusing word to use here, so soon after "operator." It can mean "work," "survive," "carry on (an irregular way of life)" etc I get the humor of the sentence, but I think precision is more encyclopedic.
    • Or is the transitive version meant, i.e. "He was able to operate his businesses through ...?"
    • The main issue, however, is the coherence of the sentence. Not all readers will understand why the bribes were needed. If the link is suggesting that child pornography was involved then it should be stated clearly. Many readers will have no idea that child pornography was even an issue in the 1960s, which in any case is a decade, a long time.
      • ????? Child pornography? There is no suggestion anywhere in the article he was involved in that and I'm struggling to see how that impression is even remotely suggested. - SchroCat (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The link says, "The Paedophile Unit is a branch of the Metropolitan Police Service's Child Abuse Investigation Command, based at Scotland Yard in London, England. It operates against the manufacture and distribution of child pornography, ..." That is the confusing part. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because the unit has changed course in the meantime. As this is the lead (which summarises what is in this article), we're all good not to play around with adding extraneous detail. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The link to which you have sent the reader says in its history section, "The Paedophile Unit began life in the early 1960s as the Obscene Publications and Public Morals Branch, although the name was shortened in 1990 to the Obscene Publications Branch (OPB).[6] Its common name, however, even among the police hierarchy, was always the Obscene Publications Squad (OPS)" Why have you used the name used between 1990 and 1995? At the very least, you could have sent the reader to [[Paedophile Unit#History|Obscene Publications and Public Morals Branch]] or [[Paedophile Unit#History|Obscene Publications Branch]] (OPB) in keeping with the information in your link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're basing this on information from a poorly sourced article that relies on a reference from Time Out? I'm not sure how that trumps all the sources in this article (including biographies of policemen written way before 1990) that refer to the unit as the Obscene Publications Branch or the Obscene Publications Squad. I have tweaked the link to the History section of article to try and get passed this. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have to understand something: you put a link in your article, in the second sentence no less. I am a reviewer. I read the sentence, and clicked on a link. It took me to something that didn't add up. I called you out on it. You are blaming me for not checking the full history of that page and for the less than steller sources being used? Seriously? It is your FAC. It is your responsibility to make sure that the links you have added are not meaningless. Not mine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You need to lose the battlefield approach on this: I have not blamed you for anything at all. I have changed the link as requested to the history section. End of. Enough playing "gotcha!" please. (And it is not my article: it is just an article) - SchroCat (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something along the lines of, "Although ... was illegal in Britain, he was able to survive in the business (or carry on in the business, or operate his businesses) through ... " I know this will kill the humor, but ...
  • Sentence 3: His meticulously kept diaries—detailing meetings he held with police officers, the venues of the meetings and the amounts of bribes he paid—provided the basis for the investigation by anti-corruption officers of the Metropolitan Police.
    • "detailing," which has the meaning of "describing minutely," is redundant after "meticulously," (i.e. "in a manner that is careful about minute details," or "precisely" (as opposed to "conscientiously"))
    • There is a tense issue. The verb "provide" is in the past. Keep the past perfect throughout within the m-dashes, if you choose to use them. I will give the examples below, though I grant you there is a wide variation in writing these days, and my versions might be seen as too old fashioned.
    • Were the diaries the "basis," i.e. the groundwork, the foundation, the spur? Or did they constitute the crucial evidence needed?
    • So, in my view, "His meticulously kept diaries, recording the meetings he had held with the police officers, the venues of the meetings, and the bribes he had paid, were to furnish the crucial evidence needed in the investigation by anti-corruption officers of the Metropolitan Police." or "would spur the investigation by anti-corruption officers of the Metropolitan Police." (If you don't like future-in-the-past, then just use "furnished," or "spurred." I think MOS prefers the latter.)
  • Sentence 4: Humphreys became involved in petty crime early in life, and he was first arrested at the age of 15.
    • There is nothing wrong with the sentence, it's just that it is a tad generic and a tad vague (early in life). If you give more details, the reader will pay more attention. E.g. something along the lines of:
    • "Humphreys dropped out of school at the age of 14, drifting quickly into petty crime, and securing his first arrest, for housebreaking, the following year."
  • Sentence 5: He became involved in increasingly serious crime and in March 1958 he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment at Dartmoor Prison after using explosives to open a safe and steal £8,260 of money and postal orders.
    • Note: at the end of the previous sentence, we are at age 15. So "March 1958," an actual month and year, comes as a bit of a jolt. The reader has to back-calculate to figure out his time bearings. Also, you don't really need the generic bit in the beginning. The reader knows his youthful past.
    • It might be better to say, "By the time of his 28th birthday, he had used explosives to open a safe and steal £8,260 of money and postal orders, and was awaiting a sentence of six years' imprisonment at Dartmoor Prison." (or whichever way you want to write it)
  • Sentence 6: On his release he opened a strip club in Soho, the centre of London's sex industry.
    • This is a problem sentence. A 34-year-old man, who has been a criminal for the previous 20 years, doesn't just step out of prison and open a strip club. The reader is thinking, "Where did he get the resources?"
      • If you can find a source that explains it, I would truly be delighted to see it (the sources are all very thin on his early years, which is unsurprising, given he was a criminal who would have hidden most of his activities). One supposes he had enough pf his proceeds stashed away to start a business, but the sources just don't give any information. - SchroCat (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 7: To keep the club free from harassment Humphreys had to bribe the police.
    • The reader already knows about the bribes (even about his faithful records). You need to refer back to the early mention. I.e. something like:
    • "It was at this time that Humphreys first took to offering bribes to the police, to keep his club free from harassment." (or somesuch) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but "it was at this time" is a jarring construct that says nothing at all. We currently have the same information in a more elegant and efficient form. - SchroCat (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • What we have here, I think, is the familiar situation where two very good writers would write the same thing rather differently. On the whole I think that though the main author should of course consider any suggestions'for altering the prose, finally his or her choice should prevail on what one might call stylistic matters, as opposed to substantive ones. I’ve reread the lead very carefully in the light of Fowler&fowler’s comments and it seems to me fine as it stands. Tim riley talk 09:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree. Graham Beards (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • My comments concern issues of syntax, usage, or coherence that take away from better comprehension, not those of style. My suggestions, however, are not etched in stone. They constitute just one resolution, written in a hurry, without the perspective of viewing the changes in the paragraph as a whole. Pointing to stylistic issues ("backward," not "elegant" etc,) in them does not get the nominator off the hook fixing the problem. He has already done so in the first paragraph. He must be aware that I've pointed to some issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • So far I'm not seeing much in the way of improvements in terms of comprehension, and your recent edits have changed the meaning of what was there, while making one part of a sentence near gibberish, given the use of "rank". - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • @SchroCat: The use of "had to" in the lead follows directly from its use in the biography section. I'd like to see a quotation from the source for use of "had to" in "To keep the club free of harassment from the police, Humphreys had to pay protection money to Detective Sergeant Harold "Tanky" Challenor." (Note: "have to" OED: "Expressing something that is to be done or needs to be done, as a duty, obligation, requirement, etc. Frequently with to-infinitive;" Webster's Unabridged: "to feel compulsion, obligation, or necessity in regard to — used with a noun object followed by to and the infinitive" There's no difference in meaning between Commonwealth English and North American English. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • F&F, a couple of minor things here: there is no need to ping me to this review (although if I've obviously not picked up on a point, in which case, please feel free to give me a nudge). The second point is that there is no need to keep quoting dictionaries (particularly an American one) unless there is a real problem, and there isn't a real problem here. To answer you request, the quote, from Root, (although there is much the same in Morton too) is "Humphreys had to pay ‘protection’ to a corrupt policeman Det. Sgt ‘Tanky’ Challenor". When I use words in the lead, or the body, I use them carefully and correctly, in a different way from the source, but still keeping the spirit and meaning of the original, rather than trying to introduce florid prose of some dramatic tension that isn't there.
                  • And now an oppose? I do hope you've got some solid grounds for this, as from what I've seen, you seem to be objecting to stylistic concerns, rather than anything more substantive. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's an opaque quote. There is no indication of how or why he had to. Please give me a more extensive quote. Four or five sentences. Your disavowals, by the way, have no meaning for me. I am looking only at the text, not at your putative intent. The oppose is my assessment after quickly skimming the rest of the article. I'll be happy to go through the sentences that stood out. Soon enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No, the quote is crystal clear enough. If you are going to oppose, please specify exactly where and on what grounds you are doing so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You are saying that the full quote in Root is: "Humphreys had to pay ‘protection’ to a corrupt policeman Det. Sgt ‘Tanky’ Challenor," that there are no antecedents mentioned in Root, and that you have paraphrased it as, "Humphreys had to pay protection money to Detective Sergeant Harold "Tanky" Challenor." Is this correct? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I think it's fairly clear what I have and have not said, and I think your re-wording here is deliberately misleading. If you really want to push the point I shall copy and paste the information from the two quoted sources, but you asked me about the use of "had to", and what we have in the article reflects the sources used. - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant pieces from Morton and Root are as follows:

Root: "Many have said that Rusty had a good business brain, and this undoubtedly helped Humphreys. Humphreys had to pay ‘protection’ to a corrupt policeman Det. Sgt ‘Tanky’ Challenor, later convicted and then certified insane. Challenor told Humphreys to move his club to Macclesfield Street, which he did. But once in new premises, Challenor reappeared and asked for more money, and Humphreys paid another £50 in total. It was then that Humphreys made a complaint to Scotland Yard, which was disbelieved, but which we now know was almost definitely true. Humphreys must have felt some satisfaction when Challenor went down."

and

Morton: "Just before Christmas 1969 he and Rusty met Commander Wally Virgo at the Criterion in Piccadilly. At the dinner Humphreys complained that Bill Moody would not give him a ‘licence’ to use his Rupert Street property as a bookshop. Word went down the line and within a week Silver told him arrangements had been made for him to meet Moody at another dinner in Mayfair. Over lunch the next day it was arranged that Humphreys would pay £14,000 for the ‘licence’ and that Silver would have a half-share in the takings. Moody apparently did not want it to look as though he was allowing newcomers into the fold. Humphreys also had to pay Moody £2,000 a month. No doubt he paid for the lunch as well."

The refs are as they appear in the article. It should be clear from these that Humphreys had to bribe the police to keep the clubs running. If you do not think so, I will add more references to substantitate what the weight of sources all state. No bribes, no clubs or shops. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's focus on the first: "Humphreys had to pay ‘protection’ to a corrupt policeman Det. Sgt ‘Tanky’ Challenor, later convicted and then certified insane." That is the source. Have you looked at the other sources?
  • I'm sorry, but are you taking the piss now? Of course I've looked at other sources. Is this still over the use of "had to", or are you playing a different card now? - SchroCat (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Sorry, the rest of my post got cut off.) Here's Campbell: "He had his early brushes with the police, paying over money, he complained later, to a detective called Harry Challenor. The policeman, for his part, denied taking the bribes but was to reappear in the annals of the underworld soon enough. Humphreys’ neighbour in his Soho club was Silver and it was Silver who was to be helpful when he ran into problems with expanding his empire, helping out with advice on the necessary bribes that had to be paid." That is much more nuanced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 1 in section 1.2: "On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed direction professionally and opened a strip club in Old Compton Street, Soho, which was frequented by fellow criminals."
    • In what encyclopedic register would a semi-habitual small-time criminal's coming out of a four-year served-term and opening, at some uncertain future time, a sex club, be considered a change in direction professionally? (Note: OED: Profession "An occupation in which a professed knowledge of some subject, field, or science is applied; a vocation or career, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification. More widely: any occupation by which a person regularly earns a living." I will quote from the OED or any other source that I think clarifies.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was trying to save you time by not having to quote, particularly as there is little in the way of clarification, but never mind. There is nothing wrong with "profession" in this sense ("any occupation by which a person regularly earns a living"), indeed it is perfectly correct usage: it's the reason why there is the phrase "professional criminal" (See "The Professional Criminal in England", William Douglas Morrison , International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Oct., 1902), pp. 27-40 (1902!) and "Professional Criminals", D Hobbs, 1995 ISBN 1-85521-414-8, just as quick examples. Please let me know if you would like me to produce more examples). - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not debating existence of the term "professional criminal." It is a well-known term. (See for example: Edelstein, Arnon (2015). "Rethinking Conceptual Definitions of the Criminal Career and Serial Criminality". Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 17 (1): 62–71. doi:10.1177/1524838014566694. ISSN 1524-8380.) I'm suggesting rather that Humphreys was not a professional criminal before he opened a sex club in the early 60s. (From Edelstein's table, p. 63 A professional criminal is someone who is not moonlighting, who has a full-time job in crime; who has a specialization in specific crimes; whose monetary gain is high and stable, and not low or cut off by imprisonment.) Humphreys, as I suggest was a semi-habitual small-time criminal. I'm sure I can dig up sources that attest to that. It is already clear from your description." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • And here's is Duncan Campbell (much cited in the article): "Humphreys, a crook but not a major one, was amongst the first to profit from the sixties’ boom in pornography." and elsewhere, "Jimmy Humphreys was a south Londoner from Old Kent Road who had spent time for minor villainy in approved schools, Borstals, and prisons, ..." That does not fit with the definition of a professional criminal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Enough of the playing "gotcha", please. I have not described Humphreys as a professional criminal either on the article or here. This is not a constructive review. There is a thread on the FAC talk page about people spewing out lists of petty prose points, and I am afraid that this is another example of one. Your style obviously differs to mine, but that does not mean that you get to be disruptive on every point where you may have phrased it fractionally differently. If you have any actual proper points to discuss, please bring to them to the table, because this is getting rather ridiculous now. - SchroCat (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The sequence of logic is: 1) You stated: On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed direction professionally and opened a strip club in Old Compton Street, Soho, which was frequented by fellow criminals. 2) I called you out on using "changing directions professionally" 3) You replied: "indeed it is perfectly correct usage: it's the reason why there is the phrase "professional criminal," giving me two references 4) I explained the term with a more modern reference, and Campbell, that together seem to suggest he was not a professional criminal before he became a sex club owner. Well, what was he then? Did he change direction professionally, or not? I'm not playing anything, just interpreting the text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Im sorry, but I just can't take this review seriously any more. You're taking the piss with this approach, and it goes to the heart of the problems with FAC reviewing at the moment, with people playing silly "gotcha!" games on stylistic points only. It sucks the last vestiges of enjoyment out of the writing process for no benefit to anyone. If one of the @FAC coordinators: could withdraw this before it goes downhill into further levels of stupidity, I'd be grateful. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Far from it, I'm making sure that the usage is correct. It is your hard work, your article, that is being tweaked, improved, buffed, ... so that it reads even better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @FAC coordinators: Hello. Can someone tell me if he has actually withdrawn his FAC or am I supposed to wait for his return? I am not done. I've been fairly patient with his intemperate outbursts. We can't have a nominator accuse a reviewer each time of playing "gotcha," when all I am doing is insisting on rigor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • "am I supposed to wait for his return?" Well, yes. I was sleeping; it's what I do at night. I have asked for this to be withdrawn, and I am sticking to that request (I emailed confirmation to a co-ord who asked me by email to confirm I wanted to go through with it). You are not "insisting on rigor": you are being aggressive in demanding stylistic changes are done in a manner you would prefer, and taking narrow definitions of terms where there is a broader definition to be had. I do not see this situation improving, and would rather have no further part in it. I have asked for this to be withdrawn and I will be removing it from my watchlist and moving on to something where there is still a vestige of enjoyment to be had. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Humphreys was in jail for 7 1/2 of 10 years before he opened the sex club sometime between October 1962 and May 1963. By no stretch of language, unless one is attempting to sneak in droll humor in the text, does that constitute a "change of direction professionally." I will therefore be taking out that bit of text. There is no evidence for that usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have put it back in again. You have continually taken a narrow definition of terms where there is flexibility. "professional, adj. and n. Of a person or persons: that engages in a specified occupation or activity for money or as a means of earning a living, rather than as a pastime. Contrasted with amateur." - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished at the oppose. Fowler&fowler is an editor whom I much respect, and whose input I have, indeed, recently canvassed for a review of one of my own potential FACs, but in this instance we must agree to differ. Like the other five reviewers so far I am happy with the lead, and indeed the rest of the article. Tim riley talk 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I was being given a hard time for questioning the use of "operator," without any pre- or post qualification. Here is John Sutherland:

The big men of porn, like James Humphreys, were completely insulated from the business end of things by being ‘superior landlords’, and usually took no smuggling risk. (Thus, in June 1972, a Danish lorry-driver caught near Newcastle with half a ton of porn in his container lorry got six months in prison. Whosoever in London it was destined for got away scot-free.)

This is not any old John Sutherland, but the John Sutherland whose puzzles of Oxford World's Classics I have read and re-read for 20 years. He's very erudite and precise. Clearly, Humpherys was clearly not just an operator in the usual meaning of the word (someone who minds the practical or business ends of things). I'm not out to get the nominator in any way. I don't do many reviews, but those I do are more or less at the same level. (The Cactus Wren, or for that matter, Horologium (constellation) are no different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as to "operator" it can have a range of meanings, as the OED makes clear. Sutherland's is fine, but is not definitive or exclusive. Our beloved Fowler expresses no view on the word. More generally, I of course respect your right to oppose, but I simply disagree in this case. I hope that won't put you off from (I hope) reviewing my Archbishop in due course, but that will be entirely your call, naturally. Tim riley talk 21:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) I've been in the business for too long. I mean in the business of closely looking at texts, my own and others'. No worries about RD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

edit

I can't see any problem with this article whatsoever and I certainly don't see any of the issues that Fowler&fowler is complaining about. This is worthy of FA, in my opinion. CassiantoTalk 09:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fowler&fowler's proposed changes have done the article little good, in my opinion. It's not an opposer, but it can certainly be improved. I'll have a read through today. CassiantoTalk 09:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for not writing that in green. CassiantoTalk 20:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

edit
Support Seems good to me. I haven't looked at the sourcing. A few quibbles.
  • I think "owned and operated" is too clunky. Personally, I might stick with "owned". It's stated that he "ran" the businesses shortly afterward.
  • "he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment at Dartmoor Prison " Did the judge direct the place of imprisonment? That's how it reads.
  • "To keep the club free from harassment Humphreys had to bribe the police." Harassment seems an odd term there, but maybe it's ENGVAR.
  • sex shop could possibly be linked as appropriate.
  • " The first of two trials of those charged with corruption took place in court in November that year and involved Detective Chief Inspector George Fenwick," Do we need to say "in court"?
  • "by a journalist from The Sunday People who told him that the investigation into his conviction for Garfath was being investigated.[102] " Perhaps one or the other investigation/ed could be altered.
Having now gone back and read the FAC, or at least F&F's portion, I don't see anything to change my decision to support and tend to concur with Tim riley's characterisation re two very good writers. I had looked at the start of the comments before reviewing, reading the bit about "owned and operated" before deciding I had better read the article first. I hope the differences are on their way to being resolved, as it appears.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_Humphreys_(pornographer)/archive1&oldid=936759706"