Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Profumo affair/archive1


 * 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 promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Profumo affair

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Profumo affair was a major British political scandal of 1963, which had a profound and lasting effect on relations between government, press and public. At its core was a brief sexual affair between the dashing Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, and a 19-year-old topless showgirl. Profumo at first denied the association; when he was forced to admit it, a whole raft of rumours of further scandal hit the headlines. Many of them were linked to the activities of one Stephen Ward – social climber, osteopath to the aristocracy, and suspected Soviet fellow traveller. Profumo resigned; Ward became the scapegoat for the affair, and committed suicide after being tried on trumped-up vice charges. Lord Denning put the lid on things by saying that everyone had behaved properly, except Ward. The article was reviewed in great detail at peer review, and I think it is ready for consideration here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and my not very numerous queries were dealt with at that stage. A further read through the article now confirms me in the opinion that it meets all the FA criteria. I am old enough to remember this scandal very clearly, and the article gets the details and the general thrust and feel of the thing exactly right. Tim riley (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your peer review comments, and your support here, are most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support – Nicely done. A few alternatives...
 * Mounting pressures
 * "Aware of increasing public interest, Keeler began trying to sell her story to the national newspapers." – "Aware of the increasing public interest, Keeler attempted to sell her story to the national newspapers" possibly? Or "Aware of the increasing public interest, Keeler tried to sell her story to the national newspapers."
 * "Nevertheless, Profumo's denials..." – Could we get away with a pronoun here seeing as it is only him we speak of in the preceding two sentences?
 * These two suggestions both adopted - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

;Retribution
 * "Sentence was postponed until Ward was fit to appear, but on 3 August he died without regaining consciousness." – Without wishing to sound impertinent, surely when one dies, they don't regain consciousness. Or should the "regain consciousness" bit go before the death? → "Sentence was postponed until Ward was fit to appear, but he never gained consciousness and died on 3 August."
 * While your suggestions are perfectly sensible, I think the original form is OK. Ward could, after all, have briefly regained consciousness, and then died. As it was, he died without doing so. If the wording offends you, however, I don't mind if you want to change it.
 * That's fine, I suppose it was a bit nit-pickety.

That's it, sorry I missed the peer review. -- Cassianto   Talk  18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and support, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support: I was another peer reviewer, and all my (minor) concerns were addressed there. Although the event was before my time, I'm familiar with the outline, and this is an excellent and very readable account of it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The event was not quite before my time, though I don't think I understood it until some time later. Thank you for your interest, and support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. Another attendee at the PR party. There has been some work done since then but in an entirely positive and beneficial way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for previous comments and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support ditto above.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time, trouble and support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support, I had my say at the PR. I thought the article met the standards then and it is even better now. I am more than happy to back it for FA status. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:John Profumo 1960.jpg - One, this image is a bit too big. I'd say 400px wide, max. Two, I'm not quite sure of your FUR for this article. Wouldn't an image of the two of them together (if it exists) be useful? I don't think an image of Profumo on his own is enough to pass WP:NFCC#8
 * I have reset the Profumo image at upright= 1.3 – is that better? There is no image of them together, for obvious reasons; the only apparently free image of Keeler is the one used in her article, taken when she was 45 years old, quite unsuitable for this article. The basic rationale for the use of the Profumo image in this article is that he was the   central figure in the scandal that bears his name, and it will be helpful to readers' understanding of the affair to know what he looked like at the time. To have two of them  together would be great, but one is better than none. I would welcome some comment on this from other reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced, as those who are curious about Profumo can click through to the article. I would also appreciate feedback from other reviewers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Brian. I would rather see a picture as opposed to nothing at all. An actual picture of an affair would obviously not be possible so it would either fall on the person or persons involved to provide the visual representation.  Profumo would be the obvious choice as the scandal carries his name and so an image of him would be quite relevant in the circumstances. However, I also see where Crisco is coming from; it takes two to tango and a second image of Keeler would make sense. I very much doubt that there is a picture of the two of them out there together, but two separate images could be placed side by side, like we see in Gilbert and Sullivan.  The question is, will this satisfy any NFCC issues?  Cassianto   Talk  01:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to go against something like that, if only because his and her physical appearances are not all that pertinent to the case. What about a scan of the Darling letter, if one has been made available? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to have a photo of them together, preferably sitting on a bed, with exhausted, self-satisfied smirks on their faces. That being ruled out, I agree with Crisco that it would be even more difficult to justify a portrait for Keeler than it is for Profumo – even leaving aside that she is still alive and that a (supposed) free image is available (quite unsuitable for use here, though). My case for using the Profumo image is that he, above all, is associated indelibly with the scandal. It is not called the "Keeler affair", or the "Ward affair, and historically he is identified with it far more than with any other aspect of his career. It's not the strongest of rationales, but there is provision in WP for a measure of discretion in such cases, and it is hard to see whose interests would be harmed by using the image. I have not seen a facsimile of the "Darling" letter, but presumably that image is also under copyright and I can't see how any convincing fair use rational could be written. The "safe" solution would be to replace the Profumo picture with one of the location shots, but that would, in my view, significantly  diminish the article. Other voices, please speak up. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe, based on my reading (though I am quite possibly wrong), that the "Darling" letter was one of the main pieces of physical evidence of the affair. You also discuss it in-depth in the article, which would pass WP:NFCC#8 quite easily IMHO. That being said, if a facsimile of the letter is not available, that avenue is not open no matter what. Other voices? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, other voices are needed, and I have asked around. Before they chime in, one other point relevant to the Profumo image, which shows him in his capacity as War Minister. His role as such is discussed in the article quite as much as the "Darling" letter, and was the chief reason for the security concerns which coloured the affair – however bogus such concerns proved to be. That should be a positive NFCC factor with regard to the image. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another voice: It didn't, and still doesn't, strike me that the image was incidental or unnecessary. It would seem really very odd, in my view, not to have a picture of Profumo at the head of this article, and in my opinion the use of the image meets the fair use criteria. As a complete side issue, I should be mightily surprised if the owner of the page whence the uploader got the image is the owner of the copyright. A posed ministerial image like this would almost certainly have been taken by an official photographer for press and other use, and would, I suppose, be Crown Copyright. Be that as it may, whoever owns the copyright, I am satisfied that fair use applies here. Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And another voice! I'm a little wary myself as far as FU images go, and I'm a long way from being an expert. Just a few little points. Firstly, if NFCC 8 allows (which it seems to) pictures to be used to identify the subjects of articles, I don't see a huge jump from using one here to identify the main focus of the article. Secondly, my understanding is that if the picture were the subject of commentary in the article, this would easier to justify. Is there any way that this or any other photograph could be made more relevant to the article? One possible suggestion would be to change the image to one showing a reaction to the scandal. There are a few photos online of Profumo in a car surrounded by the press; would this be more suitable or more easy to justify? And finally, to follow Tim's point, are there any "official" pictures which are out of copyright in the same way that photographs of former PMs seem to be out of copyright under some kind of open government licence? But as I say, I'm no image expert, so I may be spouting rubbish here. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Crisco's concerns here – and my grasp of the intricacies of image use is not the strongest. As far as I am aware, NFCC8 concerns contextual significance and I think, in a scandal carrying his name, an image of Profumo just about fits acceptability. The image is contemporary with events and, in the absence of any News of the World-style paparazzi images of the two of them this fits the bill. - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think that's certainly enough voices. Struck the complaint, though I request that you please double-check to see who the actual copyright owner is. In ... 3 years, I believe... this image will be PD if it was taken by the Crown (see Template:PD-UKGov). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all the "voices" who have chipped in, and to Crisco for ensuring that the matter has very properly received an airing. I will do what I can to establish whether this copyrighyt is held by the Crown. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have some relevant civil service contacts, and will investigate and let you know via your talk page or email if I find anything. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is not an FAC issue, so no hurry, though it will be nice to have the image's exact status clarified. To date I have not found this image in any of the copiously illustratede Profumo books I've acquired. There is another, earlier one of him at a different ministerial desk, which is also attributed to a press agency. I am fairly ignorant of these things, but did our government ever employ an "official" photographer to take pictures of ministers? Most of those I've seen seem to have press sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Cliveden Estate from the River Thames - geograph.org.uk - 94809.jpg - Fine
 * File:Cliveden, June 2005.JPG - No EXIF data, but looks reasonable.
 * File:Wimpole Mews - geograph.org.uk - 606645.jpg - Fine
 * File:Toynbee Hall 1902.jpg - What's the copyright in the UK? Also, is this building still extant? Would it be better to just get a new photograph? This one is 60 years out of date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Having been published more than 100 years ago, the image is out of copyright in the UK. The building is definitely still there, as a visit via google maps will confirm, although it is now   surrounded by 1980s commercial buildings – which weren't there when I visited in the 1970s. The photo is not ideal, but a current one  would not, I think, give a better impression of the building that Profumo worked in in the 1960s and would not present the Hall nearly as well. Unless there is strong objection, I'm inclined to leave this in place until a more satisfactory image is available. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, I have absolutely no idea about licensing, but as far as I can make out this uses a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic licence and seems to fit the criteria under the license conditions for its use on WP. Is this acceptable Crisco?  Cassianto   Talk  01:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither Non-Commercial nor No-Derivs are allowed on Wikipedia. (CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, or CC-Zero are the ones allowed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll shut up then! ;) Cassianto   Talk  01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Prose review
 * Pending enquiries, but Radcliffe inquiry. A reason for the different spellings?
 * My error. I have standardised to "inquiry" Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There was (working from memory here) an "enquiry" below as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see one (verb rather than noun) at the end of the second paragraph of "Investigation and resignation": ...to enquire into possible security breaches". Changed to "inquire". Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Watch for overlinking. You link Macmillan twice in two paragraphs.
 * Delinked (looking for others) Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a couple more (if you don't have the script, I highly recommend it): Soviet Union (#Ward and Ivanov), Sunday Mirror (#Retribution; I don't think this one is such a big deal though),  Lord Denning,  Daily Mirror (both #Retribution). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * More soonish. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * a former Labour MP who she met by chance in a night club. - I always get this wrong, apparently, but should that be whom?
 * I think it should, and have altered accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What's the point of mentioning the Queen Mother?
 * To show Profumo's chutzpah; having lied his head off in the house, he waltzed off with the QM. Every account mentions this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Among those who gave statements was Keeler, who confirmed her sexual relationship with Profumo, providing corroborative details of the interior of the Chester Terrace house. - Why'd she change her tune?
 * I don't think she had a "tune". She was a 20-year-old, unsophisticated, unpredictable – and perhaps a bit intimidated when gruff coppers started asking questions. Consistency was not her forte. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Timothy Bligh - Odd how we have articles on nearly everyone here but Bligh.
 * I've redlinked him, will do a stub. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a slightly out of place question, but why would Ward have turned to procuring when his earnings from medicine were considerable?
 * Exactly. This was a central weakness in the prosecution's case; Ward, with a comfortable assured income, had no need to resort to procuring or poncing. He was rightly acquitted of the procuring charges. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Above all, the judge failed to disclose Keeler's perjury at the Gordon trial—Keeler was the prosecution's chief witness against Ward." - I fail to see how this could have been done. Didn't Keeler only admit to perjury after both trials were finished? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keeler's evidence at the Gordon trial led to Gordon's conviction. At the appeal, her evidence was contradicted by two new witnesses who had been absent from the original trial. This cast considerable doubt on Keeler's veracity as a witness in the Ward trial; this information, known by Ward's trial judge, was kept from the jury. Had they known that she had been compromised, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for Ward to have been convicted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it now. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. The lead image question is under consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on prose and images. Another fantastic article from Brian, though surprisingly very little in the way of music. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I do like the odd break from music from time to time, but will be back at the grindstone soon. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN23, 173: missing italics
 * Morley title doesn't match that in link. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Both these fixed. Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Support – I read it with sheer please, found nothing to comment, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. Really enjoyed this one. I have but two so-small-you-can-hardly-see-them quibbles, both about note 12. Colon instead of point in 12:30 am? Spell out 4,000 since it starts a sentence? Finetooth (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Gerda and Finetooth. I have made the two small fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and content (not checked any of the fine detail of citation). A lovely article - informative and interesting, and generally very well put together.
 * A couple of small quibbles:
 * Is it quite right to characterise CK in the lead sentence as "a 19-year-old topless showgirl"? The chronology in "Background" is not very clear, but it suggests Keeler had left the club a year or so before she met Profumo, and at the time was an (unsuccessful) model. I know it needs to convey something of the scandal, but this seems a little heavy-handed.
 * "...adding that her friendship with Profumo and his wife was entirely innocent" - The article has previously suggested that Keeler was initially interested in Profumo because of his wife, but the subsequent discussion of their affair has no indication that she ever met Hobson before, during or after. It would seem to change the dynamic a little if she did, and probably worth mentioning.
 * I'm quite happy with the fair-use image as entirely justifiable in context, and very appropriate to see Profumo as he was then. I might go so far as to say that the infamous 1963 chair photo would also be reasonable to include as fair use in a later section - my understanding is that it was very much an iconic image of the height of the scandal, and it would be good to show Keeler as well as Profumo. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments and support. I have slightly amended the description of Keeler, to "would-be model" – to describe her as an "unsuccessful" model at this stage in her career would be premature, although she was ultimately unsuccessful. There is no evidence that apart from the swimming-pool encounter, Keeler ever met Valerie Hobson, and it seems that her claims to friendship with Profumo "and his wife" were unfounded. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Would-be" sounds apt - thanks! And congratulations again, it really is an excellent article on a major topic. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Support: Brianboulton, the article is fantastic! I have the following suggestions I think will be useful in improving the article.

WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis. I believe the lead gives too much due weight to the Aftermath which I feel can be compressed to make way for the expansion of other points.


 * Major Point 1: Background "" (summarised well in the lead while covering the other points)
 * Major Point 2: Origins "When the Profumo–Keeler affair was first revealed, public interest was heightened by reports that Keeler may have been simultaneously involved with Captain Yevgeny Ivanov, a Soviet naval attaché, thereby creating a possible security risk. Keeler knew both Profumo and Ivanov through her friendship with Stephen Ward, an osteopath and socialite who had taken her under his wing." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
 * Major Point 3: Developing scandal "The exposure of the affair generated rumours of other scandals, and drew official attention to the activities of Ward, who was charged with a series of immorality offences." & "In March 1963 Profumo denied any impropriety in a personal statement[n 1] to the House of Commons," (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
 * Major Point 4: Exposure "but was forced to admit the truth a few weeks later. He resigned from the government and from Parliament." & "Perceiving himself as a scapegoat for the misdeeds of others, Ward took a fatal overdose during the final stages of his trial, which found him guilty of living off the immoral earnings of Keeler and her friend Mandy Rice-Davies." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
 * Major Point 5: Aftermath "The repercussions of the affair severely damaged Macmillan's self-confidence, and he resigned as prime minister on health grounds in October 1963. His Conservative party was marked by the scandal, which may have contributed to its defeat by Labour in the 1964 general election." & "An inquiry into the affair by a senior judge, Lord Denning, indicated that there had been no breaches of security arising from the Ivanov connection. Profumo subsequently sought private atonement as a volunteer worker at Toynbee Hall, an East London charitable trust. By 1975 he had been officially rehabilitated, although he did not return to public life. He died, honoured and respected, in 2006. Keeler found it difficult to escape the negative image attached to her by press, law and parliament throughout the Profumo affair. In various, sometimes contradictory accounts, she has challenged Denning's conclusions relating to security issues. Ward's conviction has been described by analysts as an act of Establishment revenge, rather than serving justice. In January 2014 his case was under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with the possibility of a later reference to the Court of Appeal." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, the lead is currently aftermath heavy and should be compressed further. )
 * Major Point 6: Dramatisations "" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Brianboulton, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, and for your kind words. In general, I don't agree   with your   opinion that the lead is not a  concise summary of the article. The lead is intended to summarise  the essence of the subject, with limited recourse to detail, and I'm satisfied it does this. Throughout a long peer review process and this FAC, none of the many  reviewers has suggested that the lead needs attention, which rather indicates that you are a lone voice here. However, you do have a valid point in relation to dramatisations, which should have a brief mention in the lead. I thank you for pointing this out, and have added  the necessary wording. Brianboulton (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.