Talk:James Humphreys (pornographer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Other issues of Fowler&fowler

Section 1.2 (continued from FAC review)

• Sentence 2:Soho was the area of London described by the cultural theorist Oliver Carter as "the central location for London's sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature". (cited to page 6 of a journal article of Oliver Carter: Carter, Oliver (26 July 2018). "Original Climax Films: historicizing the British hardcore pornography film business". Porn Studies. 5 (4): 411–425. doi:10.1080/23268743.2018.1489301. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Carter, however, says, on page 6: ". According to Mort (2010) Soho was the central location for London’s sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature. This economy was able to operate through an alliance between local entrepreneurs and the Metropolitan Police."
  • Mort (2010) is, page 222 of Mort, Frank (2010), Capital Affairs: London and the Making of the Permissive Society, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11879-7 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  • That this is indeed the case, is mentioned by Tyler, Melissa (2019), Soho at Work, Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–, ISBN 978-1-107-18273-8 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help) on page 65:

    "As Frank Mort has summarized it in Capital Affairs, Soho’s location is fundamental to understanding its significance as ‘London’s exotic foreign quarter and long-standing centre of the capital’s sexual economy’”

  • Frank Mort works in Cultural History at Manchester. Oliver Carter, in Culture Theory at Birmingham City University. Both are well-recognized in their fields. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Nothing here negates anything in the article. As with much of the dross posted at your second rate FAC review, you are insisting on minute changes based on little more than a desire to be disruptive. Time to trip trap off somewhere else. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Sentence 2 (continued). After inaccurately quoting Oliver Carter, no attempt is made anywhere to explain how this "sexual economy" worked, or where it stood with respect to British law. Oliver Carter himself describes it:

  Under British law, distributing hardcore pornography was restricted by the Obscene Publications Act. This was introduced to “strengthen the law concerning pornography” (Robertson 1979, 20). The vague and problematic law was enforced by the Obscene Publications Squad (OPS), an arm of the Metropolitan Police known as the Dirty Squad. According to Geoffrey Robertson (1979, 5) OPS officers “maintained an unofficial licensing system in Soho, permitting the surreptitious sale of hardcore material”. OPS officers found that they could make large sums of money from those involved in Soho’s sexual economy as well as controlling what could or could not be sold in the bookstores. Martin Tomkinson (1980, 53-54) states that the “going rate” for a licence would be “£100 - £200 for a single shop”; larger players like Jimmy Humphreys would pay £1000 a month.

  The expression "licensing fee" occurs nowhere in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Sentence 3: Humphreys rekindled a relationship with a former girlfriend, June Gaynor, nicknamed Rusty, after the colour of her hair; she had previously worked as a barmaid and model, but was employed as a stripper by the time she and Humphreys resumed their relationship. The couple married in May 1963." (Cited to two sources, the second of which is Duncan Campbell (journalist, born 1944), longtime Guardian journalist.)
  • I can't access the first source; Campbell, however, says,

    At the same time, one June Packard who had renamed herself Rusty Gaynor - Rusty after the colour of her hair and Gaynor after the film star Mitzi - was becoming the Queen of the Soho strippers. From the family of a respectable Kent master-builder, she had been encouraged to learn tap-dancing and singing by a mother who dreamed of another Shirley Temple. Rusty had started as a chorus girl but, when music hall faded from fashion, found herself working as a Soho stripper. She decided to make herself one of the best, choosing her own musical arrangements, hiring Shirley Bassey’s choreographer of the time, flying to Paris to see what they were doing at the Crazy Horse and the Folies Bergére, and stripping to torch songs and ‘Rhapsody in Blue’.

  • June Packard, took the name Rusty Gaynor (Rusty after her hair, and Gaynor after Mitzi Gaynor. She was a chorus girl. She wasn't just employed as a stripper but was actively pursuing that career. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Sentence 4: "To keep the club free of harassment from the police, Humphreys had to pay protection money to Detective Sergeant Harold "Tanky" Challenor."
  • "protection money" pipes to Protection racket, which says, "A protection racket is a scheme whereby a group provides protection to businesses or other groups through violence outside the sanction of the law. In other words, it is a racket that sells security, traditionally physical security but now also computer security. Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients. Protection rackets tend to appear in markets in which the police and judiciary cannot be counted on to provide legal protection, because of incompetence (as in weak or failed states) or illegality (black markets)."
  • This is seen elsewhere in the article, links that mislead are presented to the reader. No responsibility is taken; rather, it is left to the reader to make judicious assessments after clicking out from the page and wasting much time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Notes of Fowler&fowler

Section 1.2 (continued from FAC review)

• Sentence 1: 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.
  • There is clear ambiguity. The primary meaning of "professionally" is:(OED) "In a professional manner; by, or as if by, a professional. 1901 Daily Chron. 21 Dec. 3/2 For German officers, the best professionally trained officers in the world, no preliminary specialisation is required. 1941 J. Agee & W. Evans Let us now praise Famous Men 436 Her dark blond hair is newly washed and professionally done up in puffs at the ears. 2000 Which? Oct. 18/1 Cavity wall insulation... Get it professionally done." Webster's Unabridged in a professional manner <a professionally equipped stage — Key Reporter> <the first professionally trained and experienced librarian to fill this position — Current Biography>
  • Humpherys was not a professional, not even a professional criminal, before he opened his strip club. 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.) (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. According to 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, ..."

• Your definition of "professionally" is way to narrow. The OED has as one of their major definitions "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." No need to change this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your quote above is from "professional, adjective, II. Senses relating to or derived from (the conduct of) a profession or occupation.3. c" (not "professional, adverb (see above)" the sense in which you have used it In any case, even adjectival use, does not apply to a person described as "a crook, but not a major one," (Campbell) who had been in jail for 7 1/2 of the previous ten years for variable forms of felony, larceny, burglary, etc. before exiting jail and opening the first of his sex shops and strip clubs. I have already given you detailed attributes of a professional criminal from a recent journal article. As I have said before, you might be using it in OED's sense "c. In humorous or derogatory use. Of a person: habitually making a feature of a particular activity or attribute, esp. one that is generally regarded with disfavour; inveterate." but that is not encyclopedic usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

1. No-one (except you) is making the connection between the use here and the term "professional criminal". 2. Please don't tell me which use of a word I mean. I have explained which use, and I am struggling to see why you are having difficulty in accepting it. This may be a degree of misunderstanding between varieties of English, but whatever it is, you are baring up completely the wrong tree with demands for this to change. No need to change this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I challenge anyone on Wikipedia to dispute my contention that you are using the word adverbially. "Professionally" is an adverb, whose entry from OED I have given you above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sentence 2:Soho was the area of London described by the cultural theorist Oliver Carter as "the central location for London's sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature". (cited to page 6 of a journal article of Oliver Carter: Carter, Oliver (26 July 2018). "Original Climax Films: historicizing the British hardcore pornography film business". Porn Studies. 5 (4): 411–425. doi:10.1080/23268743.2018.1489301. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Carter, however, says, on page 6: ". According to Mort (2010) Soho was the central location for London’s sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature. This economy was able to operate through an alliance between local entrepreneurs and the Metropolitan Police."
  • Mort (2010) is, page 222 of Mort, Frank (2010), Capital Affairs: London and the Making of the Permissive Society, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11879-7 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  • That this is indeed the case, is mentioned by Tyler, Melissa (2019), Soho at Work, Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–, ISBN 978-1-107-18273-8 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help) on page 65:

    "As Frank Mort has summarized it in Capital Affairs, Soho’s location is fundamental to understanding its significance as ‘London’s exotic foreign quarter and long-standing centre of the capital’s sexual economy’”

  • Frank Mort works in Cultural History at Manchester. Oliver Carter, in Culture Theory at Birmingham City University. Both are well-recognized in their fields. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Nothing here negates anything in the article. As with much of the dross posted at your second rate FAC review, you are insisting on minute changes based on little more than a desire to be disruptive. Time to trip trap off somewhere else. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I stand by my comment here: we have directly quoted a solid academic source for one sentence that is an incredibly well-known fact anyway. I'm bemused by whatever you're trying to say. No need to change this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Again, you have attributed the quote to Oliver Carter, whereas it is a quote from Frank Mort. Carter says, "According to Mort (2010), Soho was the central location for London’s sexual economy, ..." You have written, "Soho was the area of London described by the cultural theorist Oliver Carter as "the central location for London's sexual economy, ..." You have not only incorrectly quoted, you have also incompletely quoted, and violated WP:DUE by giving the attribution to Carter's obscure journal paper (Google Scholar citation index 0) instead of Frank Mort's original book of Google Scholar citation index 169. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
        • As the words are Carter's (summarising the position of Mort), we have quoted them, giving the attribution. You may note, from Carter, that he uses no quotation marks around that section of text, so we do not know if he was directly quoting Mort (unlikely, given the lack of quote marks) or summarising him. Please stop lying by claiming I have incorrectly quoted this:

WP text:	"the central location for London's sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature"
Carter's text:	"the central location for London's sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature"

Please point out the exact differences in the text, where I have "incorrectly quoted" anything. If you can't, please stop lying. We could change to Mort (which would be possible if you have a copy of Mort and can verify exactly what he says and where), but you're too imbued with a BATTLEFIELD approach to have made the suggestion - you've just kept repeating about "incorrectly quoting", which is untrue.- SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Carter's quote is: "According to Mort (2010), Soho was the central location for London’s sexual economy, ..." You have written, "Soho was the area of London described by the cultural theorist Oliver Carter as "the central location for London's sexual economy, ..." You have not only incorrectly quoted, you have also incompletely quoted, and violated WP:DUE by giving the attribution to Carter's obscure journal paper (Google Scholar citation index 0) instead of Frank Mort's original book of Google Scholar citation index 169. Mort's quotation is cited in other scholarly books. You yourself acknowledge that Mort's work is well-known. If Professor X from University Y says, "According to Abraham Lincoln, that government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot perish from the earth. " We can't say, "According to Professor X from University Y that government ... cannot perish from the earth." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As is now fairly clear, I have not "incorrectly quoted" anything. It is a lie to keep repeating it, knowing it to be false. The text from Oliver and our use of his quote are shown in the table above. They are not "incorrectly quoted". Have you viewed those exact words in Mort's work? If so, please tell me where and provide, if possible, a link. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The words do not need to be exact. I have already quoted Melissa Tyler above. If Professor X from University Y says, "According to Abraham Lincoln, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot perish from this earth. (an imprecise quote)" We cannot say, "According to Professor X from University Y a government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot perish from this earth." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Again: "Have you viewed those exact words in Mort's work? If so, please tell me where and provide, if possible, a link." - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I said the words do not need to be exact. Carter's quote is "According to Mort (2010), Soho was the central location for London’s sexual economy," Melissa Tyler in her new book published by Cambridge University Press has cited an exact quotation from Frank Mort's book Capital Affairs (published by Yale University Press), "long-standing centre of the capital’s sexual economy’" (See above for the book's citation). That is close enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No it bloody isn't. I'm not using third hand descriptions. As I have commented at the bottom of the page: I do not intend to deal with any oth this (except the maiden name). So unless you have any new topics you wish to try and raise, there is no point in continually banging the drum on this. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I challenge anyone on Wikipedia to prove that the quotation of Melissa Tyler (in her recent book Tyler, Melissa (2019), Soho at Work, Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–, ISBN 978-1-107-18273-8 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help), page 65, from Frank Mort's book, Capital Affairs, Yale University Press, "‘London’s exotic foreign quarter and long-standing centre of the capital’s sexual economy’” is incorrect.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler: "I challenge anyone on Wikipedia to prove that the quotation of Melissa Tyler ... from Frank Mort's book, ... is incorrect". Challenge accepted. I have Mort open in front of me, and I've gone over pages 220 to 225 several times. The quote does not exist. As I have been at pains to point out several times, we cannot use quotes from third parties: they MUST be seen first. Perhaps you could now dial back on the BATTLEFIELD approach and aggressive attitude on other points both here and at the FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have not said that they are incorrect. If we are use Mort's words (although there is no need, given the number of sources that say the same thing, including the source currently used) then it should be from Mort, not via a third party. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sentence 2 (continued). After inaccurately quoting Oliver Carter, no attempt is made anywhere to explain how this "sexual economy" worked, or where it stood with respect to British law. Oliver Carter himself describes it:

  Under British law, distributing hardcore pornography was restricted by the Obscene Publications Act. This was introduced to “strengthen the law concerning pornography” (Robertson 1979, 20). The vague and problematic law was enforced by the Obscene Publications Squad (OPS), an arm of the Metropolitan Police known as the Dirty Squad. According to Geoffrey Robertson (1979, 5) OPS officers “maintained an unofficial licensing system in Soho, permitting the surreptitious sale of hardcore material”. OPS officers found that they could make large sums of money from those involved in Soho’s sexual economy as well as controlling what could or could not be sold in the bookstores. Martin Tomkinson (1980, 53-54) states that the “going rate” for a licence would be “£100 - £200 for a single shop”; larger players like Jimmy Humphreys would pay £1000 a month.

  The expression "licensing fee" occurs nowhere in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course the term "licensing fee" doesn't appear in the article: it's not a real thing. It's the way one writer has chosen to explain it. We (along with the majority of other sources) use different words. No need to change this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sentence 3: Humphreys rekindled a relationship with a former girlfriend, June Gaynor, nicknamed Rusty, after the colour of her hair; she had previously worked as a barmaid and model, but was employed as a stripper by the time she and Humphreys resumed their relationship. The couple married in May 1963." (Cited to two sources, the second of which is Duncan Campbell (journalist, born 1944), longtime Guardian journalist.)
  • I can't access the first source; Campbell, however, says,

    At the same time, one June Packard who had renamed herself Rusty Gaynor - Rusty after the colour of her hair and Gaynor after the film star Mitzi - was becoming the Queen of the Soho strippers. From the family of a respectable Kent master-builder, she had been encouraged to learn tap-dancing and singing by a mother who dreamed of another Shirley Temple. Rusty had started as a chorus girl but, when music hall faded from fashion, found herself working as a Soho stripper. She decided to make herself one of the best, choosing her own musical arrangements, hiring Shirley Bassey’s choreographer of the time, flying to Paris to see what they were doing at the Crazy Horse and the Folies Bergére, and stripping to torch songs and ‘Rhapsody in Blue’.

  • June Packard, took the name Rusty Gaynor (Rusty after her hair, and Gaynor after Mitzi Gaynor. She was a chorus girl. She wasn't just employed as a stripper but was actively pursuing that career. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • This is possibly the only point on which a change is needed, although Campbell is the only source to mention this. Well done: for all the piss and wind you've produced, this is the one change that may be beneficial. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I note repeated intemperate language, this time, "Well done: for all the piss and wind you've produced, this is the one change that may be beneficial." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Well done for noticing: it was put in there just so you could notice it, and maybe take on board the fact that your comments here (and at the FAC) were secdond-rate nonsense - game playing and "Gotcha!" is a poor way to review anything, and you have done an awful job trying to prove anything wrong, with the exception of Humphreys's wife maiden name. Well done on that score, by the way: gold star and top of the class. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sentence 4: "To keep the club free of harassment from the police, Humphreys had to pay protection money to Detective Sergeant Harold "Tanky" Challenor."
  • "protection money" pipes to Protection racket, which says, "A protection racket is a scheme whereby a group provides protection to businesses or other groups through violence outside the sanction of the law. In other words, it is a racket that sells security, traditionally physical security but now also computer security. Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients. Protection rackets tend to appear in markets in which the police and judiciary cannot be counted on to provide legal protection, because of incompetence (as in weak or failed states) or illegality (black markets)."
  • This is seen elsewhere in the article, links that mislead are presented to the reader. No responsibility is taken; rather, it is left to the reader to make judicious assessments after clicking out from the page and wasting much time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • As I've said below, the link is to the right place, but the target article is weak. Feel free to upgrade it, rather than wasting everyone else's time falsifying problems that don't exist. No need to change this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sentence 5: When the demands for payments continued after Humphreys moved his club to nearby Macclesfield Street, he made a complaint to Scotland Yard; after a short investigation, Challenor was cleared.

Section 1.3

• And as a ps. Do not ever, ever remove an entire thread from a talk page, as you did here. Threads can be archived, but not removed and misleadingly pasted on your own talk page. Can't do that buddy boy. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I did that because you had deliberately archived an active thread, which appeared long after the first post on this page, which has not been archived. You were making it impossible for me to edit the page. I know the rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

When I archived the thread, I thought you had finished and moved on. As nothing needed to be actioned, I considered it a dead thread. That was obviously a mistake, as you keep wanting to repeat the same points. I was not "making it impossible" for you at all. You reverted the archiving and continued posting: that doesn't seem impossible at all. If, as you claim, you know the rules, you will know that it is a complete no-no to remove a lengthy thread from a talk page and post it to your own, particularly when you remove other peoples comments while doing it. If you did not know that, you certainly do now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

You archived my thread a short time after I had finished only four of the dozen odd sentences in that section. The record is there for everyone to see. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I've denied that. I still thought you had finished with the thread, which is why I archived it; I've already said I did that, and I've already said that I was mistaken in doing so. You, however, deleted the thread entirely, removing at least one of my comments as you did so. that is completely against the talk page guidelines. If you do that again, I will happily drop you into ANI for disruptive behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Is this all you have? You seem to be missing the point of what an encyclopaedia actually is. These comments are as misplaced and stupid as the ones in the FAC. This really is second rate rubbish. You don't like the links? Then re-write the target articles, because they are the ones that are weak, not this one. I was "inaccurately quoting" someone? Please don't lie: there was no inaccurate quoting. You seem to have a problem with a BATTLEFIELD approach, who doesn't like being proved wrong, or for someone calling you out for being in error. Your dishonesty in narrowly defining words in common use or refusing to accept that a stack of other people have a better grasp of things than you do? It's all really, really pathetic. Feel free to carry on, because everything I've seen here, or the illiterate rubbish you've spewed to Graham on your talk page all say an awful lot more about you than anyone else involved in this. Carry on with this if you really feel like you have some pathological need to, but everyone sees the reality of your misplaced rubbish. I actually feel rather sorry for you. - SchroCat (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I also note "stupid," and three gradations of rubbish: "second rate rubbish," "illiterate rubbish," and "misplaced rubbish." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Well done on your reading comprehension. Gold star and top of the class for you. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• As you are missing the mark with your comments so far, please provide some new ones: I do not intend to deal with anything you have come up with so far (with the exception of Rusty's name, once I've checked out some other sources). - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I think your bus is coming, old son. Time to jump on board and go somewhere else. Your involvement with this, whilst I'm in no doubt that it was good-intentioned at first, is now degenerating into a rancid blancmange. You've scuppered the FAC, driven down a productive editor, annoyed the FAC delegates, and decreased in the estimations of all else who've been unfortunate enough to witness this pantomime. Cassianto^Talk 12:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)