Talk:Marconi scandal

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Cecil Chesterton material is interesting enough to include; but the article now lacks proportionate coverage. There should be the Parliamentary context, and the overall political effect, in proper detail. Charles Matthews 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear where the words of The Times stop and Maisie Ward's begin, since there is no closing quotation mark. I think it should come after "cleanliness". Seadowns (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is, I believe, a consensus account of what actually happened, which should certainly be included. The claim that the American Marconi company was a subsidiary is at least surprising; even if it was, it requires explanation how a contract for a parent company makes the stock of a subsidiary go up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marconi scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017202309/http://www.todaysengineer.org/2003/Apr/history.asp to http://www.todaysengineer.org/2003/Apr/history.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism a Distraction

I'm very uncomfortable with the emphasis in this article on the supposed anti-Semitism of some of those who brought to the public eye the insider trading and subsequent huge profits made by various connected politicians.

There is little doubt that serious malfeasance occurred, and was covered up by a government anxious to smooth over a scandal within the ruling party.

Most of the public figures the Chestertons and Hilaire Belloc tried to hold to account were not even Jewish. It is very much an exaggeration to say that the Jews involved, the Isaacs brothers and Herbert Samuels, were "Jews as their particular targets," as if their religion, and not their abuse of the public trust was the primary reason for their being attacked.

There has been a great deal of recent scholarship examining and questioning the supposed antisemitism of the accusers, see the article on G. K. Chesterton, for example, and none of that is reflected here. The most recent reference given in this section is dated 1990 more than 25 years ago. I also wonder, particularly in some of the older British literature accusing, whether the real issue isn't anti-Catholic prejudice against these famous British Catholics (two who famously and publicly converted and one who was the first Catholic MP since the time of Henry VIII) and whether the charge of anti-Semitism wasn't just the most convenient cudgel with which to assail them.

There's also a problem with at least two of the references in the version of the article dated 24 Jun 2017.

First, calling Frances Donaldson a historian is a stretch. She is more properly called a writer or a popular biographer. I am removing her reference.

Second, the work of Gerard Hannan referenced in the sentence "According to some historians, the scandal may have been a Unionist plot to discredit five highly-placed members of a government determined to grant Home Rule to Ireland," is raving conspiratorial lunacy. Claiming that the Marconi scandal was a plot by Unionists, including Cecil Chesterton and Belloc, to derail Irish Home Rule doesn't even pass the most cursory of historical examinations. The claim is ludicrous, because they weren't even Unionists. As their Catholic religious convictions might suggest, the Chesterton brothers and Hilaire Belloc were very sympathetic to the cause of Irish Home Rule. Belloc, though from Oxford, was famously admitted to the Cambridge Union to debate in favor §of Irish Home Rule. His rhetoric, as usual, was very persuasive. I'm removing that reference also.

I welcome further discussion of this topic, particularly by those who have more expertise in this area of British political history. JohnGHissong (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kipling's excoriating poem "Gehazi" makes full use of his Old Testament knowledge. Seadowns (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re Kipling's infamous poem Gehazi. Everything I've read lately says that W R Lawson, Cecil Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were at least in part motivated by anti-semitism, although Leo Maxse, who had been pro-Dreyfus, probably wasn't. I dare say there's a lot more to it than that but it's certainly not a distraction, let alone a smear to discredit the accusers. The article isn't great - there isn't anything on the events in Parliament in late 1912, or on the Select Committee, or that Asquith probably knew a lot more, and a lot earlier, than he later claimed, or that far from being the national scandal many assume this was really what we'd nowadays call a "Westminster Bubble" story - Lord Northcliffe at one point said that he'd received only 3 letters on the topic, 2 of which he didn't print because they were "foolish". But we are where we are.Paulturtle (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) And remember that overt anti-semitism was rife in that era, especially on the back of Jewish immigration from Russia to London and Manchester. It often played a part in electoral politics or helped to blight the careers of people like Maurice de Forest.Paulturtle (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unterminated quotation

In the Aftermath section, the second block quote contains the following:

As the Times leading article of June 19, 1913, put it: 'A man is not blamed for being splashed with mud.

The opening single quote before "A man" is never closed in the block quote. I do not have access to the original, so do not know if the entire rest of the block quote is included or if the terminating single quote ought to come earlier in the block quote.

Perhaps someone with access to the original can remedy this? Ksbooth (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]