Talk:Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies

Untitled
It seems obvious to me that this article is significant, on two grounds: 1. History of prostitution 2. It sold large numbers of copies in a time when literacy was not widespread. glasperlenspiel 04:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The nominator might like also to study the imnpact the List had on English criminal law, leading as it did to considerable developments in the contemporary laws realting to prostitution, obscene publications, freedom of speech and the development of a London-wide juridical system. --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has a documentary on telly today in the UK about it Merkinsmum 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was also a major plot device in the first episode of UK's Channel 4 drama City of Vice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.167.71 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Harris's status
Two recent edits, the most recent here, remove material that suggests that Harris's status in life isn't certain, the latter asserting that a recent publication by Hallie Rubenhold proves exactly what he was. I happen to have this book on order from Amazon, it should arrive in a few days. Nevertheless, I'm uncomfortable with the removal of sourced material from this article, without supporting citations that demonstrate why the removal of that material is necessary. Even if Rubenhold's book proves to be authoritative, the opinions of other authors should not be deleted. Parrot of Doom 12:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Queries
Congratulations on getting this article approved as an FA (Karanacs promoted it but it seems the process has yet to run); I missed the FAC so I am posting below a few niggles to me after reading this excellent article. Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible authors


 * "Prompted by reformers, in April that year the authorities began to hunt ..."
 * I am a bit lost on which year. The last stated date was 1813 (preceding paragraph), which seems incongruous with the following statements.

Later years
 * "... were published by "A tavern-keeper, in Drury lane", ..."
 * Should the "A" be capital?


 * I fixed both, thanks for pointing these out. Parrot of Doom 08:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an abbreviated but direct quote from the source - The capital A is there because it's the start of an Archenholz sentence. It looks odd with the "A" I know, but it is essentially correct. It's a tricky one. How about "... were published by a "tavern-keeper, in Drury lane", ..." Acabashi (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pornography?
The article is not categorized under pornography, nor is it part of WikiProject Pornography. while its not what we usually think of as pornography, the word of course translates as "writings about prostitutes", so this should really be in those categories and project. any objections?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well modern authors pretty much agree that it was, for want of a better phrase, a wank mag - so I have no issues with what you suggest. Parrot of Doom 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

recent changes
I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that a short essay or paper can automatically be considered more reliable than a rather long and apparently well researched book. What makes Freeman more reliable than any of the sources currently used? Parrot of Doom 14:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You had the option of using the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Janet Ing Freeman has a position at University College London. She has authored or co-authored scholarly books. I don't think you've taken the correct approach to evaluating this as a reliable source. Preferring an old book to a new paper in a learned journal? I have a problem with that. Let alone your attitude to an newbie. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is that supposed to impress me or something? Parrot of Doom 01:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Nevertheless, I'm uncomfortable with the removal of sourced material from this article, without supporting citations that demonstrate why the removal of that material is necessary. Even if Rubenhold's book proves to be authoritative, the opinions of other authors should not be deleted." But indeed you did exactly that: deleted those opinions. We are talking therefore about (i) failure to respect NPOV; (ii) biting a newbie; (iii) incivility. Plus applying what appears to me an idiosyncratic reading of the guideline on reliable sources. As it also says up the page, "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." I think, to be consistent, you should be prepared to discuss the reliability of the Freeman reference of 2012.


 * I'll come back, hoping we can make a start on that, and improve the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence makes no sense
"Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, published from 1738 to 1492..." Is that supposed to be 1792? IF so, why does it later say there is an extant copy of the 1793 edition? And it says 1795 was the last year's edition to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKPhilosophy (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See also?
Would this article benefit from a "See also" section, with a link to Gropecunt Lane? Mjroots (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Gropecunt Lane has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Parrot of Doom 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)