Talk:Profumo affair/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please can someone explain the references to "Lucky Gordon" made elsewhere when discussing the Profumo Affair?

Lucky Gordon was a Jamaican man who Christine Keeler met on a night out with Stephen Ward. She has claimed that he became obsessed with her and she began to fear for her life. Once at the All-Nighter Club, she was with a friend, Johnny Edgecombe, when Gordon appeared. Edgecombe slashed Gordon in the face, and was later jailed. In 1963, just as the Profumo Affair was starting to make headlines, Gordon allegedly attacked Christine and was tried for grievous bodily harm. He appealed successfully, as two witnesses who Christine had not named later came forward. Christine was then tried for perjury and jailed for nine months.

Where does Mandy Rice-Davies fit in this affair?

Mandy was a friend of Christine's who had dated slum landlord Peter Rachman. After Rachman's death, she briefly lived at the flat Christine was sharing with Stephen Ward. While staying there, she had an affair with Dr Emil Savundra, who allegedly agreed to pay for some acting classes she was taking. She also claimed to have slept with Lord Astor, who lived at Cliveden, and said that he later gave her some money towards an unpaid bill. When Ward was charged with living off immoral earnings, Mandy was one of the girls named in his case.

A month later the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan resigned, his ill-health exacerbated by the scandal, he was replaced by Earl Home as Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

What does this sentence mean? Perhaps that Macmillan was replaced as Prime Minister by Earl Home who was also known as Sir Alec Douglas-Home? Rmhermen 18:32, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Earl Home resigned his peerage to become Sir Alec Douglas-Home, and Prime Minister; he later became Earl Home again. I simplified the wording. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

References include Wikipedia's copy of the widely circulated 1963 Lewis Morley photo of Christine Keeler. The 1950s editions of the Yankee "Playboy" notwithstanding, Morley's art deco photo somehow "shocked" the British politic, having withstood Bloomsbury and whatall.

Should the reference to this in We Didn't Start the Fire be mentioned in the article?

Would anyone be opposed to changing the passage, "MacMillan himself would resign a few months later due to ill-health." to something along the lines of, "Due to his failing health, MacMillan resigned a few months later." I think that the second one is more neutral in it's wording, and is not as likely to have people connect MacMillan's reason for resigning with Profumo's. -- 01:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Howcheng. Both the Profumo and Keeler images seem to meet copyright criteria for this article. If you disagree, please state your case here. I have no wish to enter an edit war but please do not make arbitrary deletions. I will hear what you have to say. Bob BScar23625 07:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

ps. no offence intended, but please also note rules on Wikipedia:Canvassing

I don't see any need to throw out references to CANVASS when I have in fact not engaged in any, although I will happily get third (and more) opinions at Wikipedia:Fair use review. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically item 8. Non-free images need to augment the text, not just supplement it, meaning that it should be the case that if the image were not there, the reader's understanding of the article would be compromised. There is no discussion of these non-free images anywhere in the text. If you take them away, there is no real detriment, because the user can always follow the hyperlinks to the Profumo and Keeler articles, where they are more useful. In fact, I might even argue that the Keeler pic in this article is distracting because the reader is left wondering why she posed so provocatively. As such, they only serve a decorative purpose here, and that's why they really can't be used here. Does that make sense? To be clear, I am not advocating for deletion of the images, just for the limitation of them to places where they are actually useful. They are nice to have for this article, but not critical, and therein lies the difference. howcheng {chat} 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Howcheng. I have heard your comments many times before about images being "decorative". No reasonable person would agree with you that this is so in this particular case. Please leave the images alone and do not attempt to involve any of your fellow special interest group members in this discussion. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? "No reasonable person"? You realize you are talking to an administrator who specializes in image issues, right? Not that I'm pulling rank or anything, but you need to understand that I know what I'm talking about. See you at WP:FUR. howcheng {chat} 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard. You are drifting into canvassing. Why will you not discuss the matter directly here?. Bob BScar23625 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, canvassing is where I go and spam a number of talk pages of users who I believe will agree with me. WP:FUR on the other hand is the appropriate venue to discuss whether a non-free image is being used properly within its article context. True, I expect WP:FUR to back me up because this happens to be a point of policy with which I am very familiar, but there are editors who subscribe to both liberal and conservative (not in the political sense) readings of WP:NFCC regularly patrol that board, so you never know. And to whom am I responding to here, BScar23625 or Isabela84? Or do you happen to be the same person behind both accounts? Note that sockpuppeting is not necessarily frowned upon, only when puppets are used to create an illusion of consensus that doesn't necessarily exist. But I digress. The point in gathering outside opinions off of this talk page is that one only expects people who have a vested interest in this article to have it on their watchlist and thus know about this discussion. If there were a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use liberalization I would post a notice there as well, but there isn't. howcheng {chat} 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard. Isabela84 is my niece who is here today. Sorry about the confusion. You should engage on this talk page for several days before going to another forum. Bob BScar23625 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to agree with Howcheng here -- you need to actually discuss this image in the article for it to be included. Right now, it's only loosely connected with the line "added fuel to the fire". Why? How? Where is the source for this statement? It's not enough to just assert that it did something; the article has to discuss the image, and a vague unsourced statement about it in the caption is not enough. --Haemo 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Haemo. Firstly, please be assured that your opinion is valued and appreciated. However, may I ask what brought you to this page?. regards. Bob BScar23625 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. If there are people coming in here to support your position, I am not going to ask them the same question. I certainly didn't ask Haemo for his opinion, if that's what you're trying to get at. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeler image[edit]

After discussion on Wikipedia:Fair use review, Image:CKeeler1.jpg will be allowed to stay if and only if it can be worked into the article better. See WP:NFCC #8, which requires that the image increase the reader's understanding of the subject in a way that words alone cannot. Under the assumption that the image had a substantial impact on the scandal, the article needs to make that clear, which it currently does not. In other words, the article must engender a need for the image, such that if it were not included here, the reader would be left with a sense of missing something. User:Jheald made an attempt to include how the image has become iconic, but that's not about the image's effect on the scandal. As it stands right now, there's no compelling reason to have the image in this article -- the reader is left with no understanding of why we need this particular image of Keeler. I leave it to the article's editors to find sources that describe how other politicians or the general public reacted to the photo with regards to the scandal. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted this notice a week ago, and so far there's been no activity on this. Is anyone doing any research about this image's effect on the scandal? If no answer or no edits are forthcoming within the next week, I'll be removing it from the article again because as it stands right now, its omission from the article wouldn't have any impact on the reader's understanding of the topic. howcheng {chat} 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As there has been no effort within the last two weeks to actually integrate that image into this article, I have removed it. When enough information is added to the article such that readers really need to see the image in order to understand the article better (i.e., the image's effect on the scandal, with referenced statements that spell out specifically what people's reactions were to it), then the image may be put back in. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Disputed; image reinstated. The discussion in the caption, in the context of the unfolding events, is already quite adequate. Jheald 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The caption only discusses the notability of the image itself and how it has been endlessly parodied, which is good for the Christine Keeler article, but it doesn't help us understand its effect on the Profumo Affair beyond the words, "adding fuel to the fire" -- how so? What exactly happened? What were people's reactions to it? And even if that description is accurate, it needs to be sourced because right now it reads like original research. I'm not British and I know nothing of this scandal, which is why I don't see the need for the image here. Rewrite this article so that it makes its influence on the events detailed here clear. Because otherwise, for this article, WP:NFCC #8 isn't being met. howcheng {chat} 23:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it seems no one is interested in expanding the article enough to the point where I feel the image's inclusion is warranted. At this point it seems to be basically a dispute between myself and Jheald. Note that these are the same objections I brought up at Wikipedia:Fair use review/Archive 1#Profumo Affair. Please do not restore the image until the article can make a case for its requirement. Note that I feel its use in Christine Keeler is completely justified. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image reverted. Given the manifest significance of the image to what happened, what's there is more than adequate. Jheald 19:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. I've said this numerous times before: The article doesn't make the case for significance. I've given editors here almost a month to correct this and nobody's even bothered to make an attempt. Your cited source says nothing about the role the image had in the scandal. There's nothing here that even suggests that the photo had any sort of impact whatsoever except for your uncited statement in the image caption, which smacks of original research. If you want the photo here, do the legwork and convince me. I am removing it once again and I will even open a RFC for discussion. Look, I am not unwilling to bend here, but you need to do more than just say, "It's significant." Prove it. howcheng {chat} 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Requests made at both Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics and Wikipedia:Fair use review. howcheng {chat} 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me do the maths for you. March Profumo says there was no impropriety. Story looks likely to blow over. May This photo appears, drives the story back onto the front page. Next week David Frost and the satire programme TW3 make hay with it. June 5 Profumo resigns. Don't you think that makes it jusy a teensy-weensy bit significant? Jheald 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't this information in the article? There is no link between the photo and his change of position made here. David Frost and TW3 aren't even mentioned. Based on reading the article, it's perfectly reasonable to deduce that his conscience got the better of him and he decided to admit to having committed perjury. Do you understand why I've had objections here? You've been operating this whole time under the assumption that the reader already knows the sequence of events and I'm saying you need to spell it out for people like me who have absolutely no understanding of what happened. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Howard. I am with Jheald on this. Any reasonable person can see that the image contributes to the article. Please do not be offended when I once again draw your attention to the issue of "forum shopping" in WP:Canvassing. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in no way unreasonable. I've outlined exactly what sort of steps are required to keep the image in the article and the things I have asked for are not impossible. Any "reasonable" person should be able to follow my logic and any "reasonable" person should have no objections against improving this article to give it more depth. howcheng {chat} 20:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I am commenting in response to the RFC. In my view, the image is clearly appropriate and useful. If the scandal had involved a sexual dalliance with a reserved and staid lady working in the government bureaucracy, it would have been considerably less sensational. The image helps explain the impact of the scandal. --Marvin Diode 14:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"Christine Keeler's nude body became the defining image of the Profumo Affair of 1963" -- writes a columnist on the Grauniad today, discussing the cultural shifts in Britain in the 1960s [1]. -- Jheald 19:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the image itself is notable (and not just the subject), and that this particular image satisfied NFCC #8 in a way that an ordinary photograph of Keeler would not. It has significant cultural impact. Note the cover of Scandal (1989 film), for instance. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I don't actually disagree with the assessment of the photo's cultural impact; my point is that the article at the moment does not support it. howcheng {chat} 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Scandal" video link[edit]

Howard. Have you noticed the External Link to the Dusty Springfield video "Scandal" on YouTube. Surely this is a serious breach of copyright and it needs to be deleted?. Bob BScar23625 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct and I have removed it. howcheng {chat} 00:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard. I'm not so sure that is correct. Until the matter is clarified, I have put the video link back again. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 22:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If the YouTube account is run by the record label, then it would be OK. However, it appears to run by a Dusty fan, so it's likely to be a copyvio. The account profile page says nothing about the person being officially licensed to show Dusty videos or anything either. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard. You say it "appears" to be run by a Dusty fan, so it's "likely" a copyvio. But you don't know either of those things for sure - so perhaps there is no need to look into the matter too far?. Bob BScar23625 23:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you were the one who brought it up. If you want to drop it, that's fine with me. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember more scandal than this[edit]

This article only seems to brush the surface of the scandal that I remember. Of course, much of the dirt circulating at the time was never proven fact but that shouldn't be a limitation when reporting this kind of titillating material. It would be a little pretentious to demand rigid journalistic standards.

As far as I recall, there was a certainly political scandal in Profumo's dalliance with Keeler, but that was tame stuff; the real meat of the scandal (and even the nobler newspapers reported it gleefully) was that during the trial it began to appear that Stephen Ward was running a bunch of sex parties for the aristocracy and Keeler's affair with Profumo was only the tip of the iceberg. I wouldn't like to report here all the names in the wind at the time but many of them were well known. The Kubrick movie "Eyes wide shut" had some interesting similarities.

Ward, by the way, was an excellent artist and spent much of his time during the trial sketching witnesses and court officials.

Postscript: Ah. Some apologies. Some hints of this scandal are indeed reported--although tamely--under Stephen Ward's article. However, I would beg to differ on this. "The Profumo Affair" describes the larger scope of scandal (including that of Stephen Ward) and not just the material that might be reported under an article titled "John Profumo".

-- 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Scandal (1989) reviews[edit]

Regarding this edit comment, RT has some issues: For this film, RT is counting some "fresh" reviews when they are missing and can't be verified. And the "RT Community", usually mentioned along with the "Top Critics", is at 48%, not great.

Anyhow, a review serves to support the claim that a film was produced. I'd settle for some other review, or if you insist, let the film's article suffice. --Lexein (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Private Eye[edit]

I may be mistaken, but wasn't the magazine Private Eye fairly heavily involved in the exposing of this scandal? I've certainly always thought of the two being linked, so didn't know if it should maybe be mentioned somewhere in the article... NJHartley (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Couple of links backing this up here and here NJHartley (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Closer than you think :) See the "Later celebrity" section of the Mandy Rice-Davies article.► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see I wasn't mistaken... but not sure how best to include it in this article NJHartley (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


There seem to be a number of discrepancies in this article and the related ones on Keeler and Ivanov, specically regarding: (1) Her relationship with Profumo (prostitute, mistress etc) and by extension her occupation (2) Whether Ivanov was a spy. These issues are fundamental to the scandal, so they either need to be nailed down or it needs to be said that the basic facts of the case remain subject to speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Killer Queen by Queen[edit]

The source you quote for the reference, makes no mention of the song being anything to do with Christine Keeler.

However, this IS verifiable

In the New Musical Express November 2, 1974, the song's writer Freddie Mercury elucidates on this song: "It's about a high class call girl. I'm trying to say that classy people can be whores as well. That's what the song is about, though I'd prefer people to put their interpretation upon it - to read into it what they like."

Although Christine Keeler at the time of the Profumo affair could quite possibly be described as a high class call girl, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the song with Christine Keeler.

Unless you have any reliable citations for the reference to Killer Queen, can you remove it please? (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)