Jump to content

Talk:Oswald Mosley/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ambiguity

This article is completely ambiguous. People have asked questions on this discussion page about the ambiguity of the article to have their questions answered here by Wiki users. Why don't the people answering the questions update the article? - zippy.fuzz 21:46 (GMT) 16 November 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Mosleyarrest.jpg

Image:Mosleyarrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BUF decline

Why is there no detailed mention of the decline of the BUF in Britain? Prior to 1934 the BUF was probably in its strongest position with its peak membership of around 50,000 people which abruptly declined after the Olympia fiasco of 1934. It lost not just mass support but also financial support as well as dettering other potential supporters. Yes there was a brief revival in the run up to the war, mostly spurred on by Mosley's campaigns for peace with Germany but 1934 was almost definitively the end of the BUF as a political force, not that it ever had any serious political potential in the first place. I think this needs to be added.

Also, the user who quoted Oswald as a "great man". I'm not going to question your personal opinion but perhaps you should do more reading into the subject. Unless of course you are an anti-semite, in which case I understand your appraisal of Mosley.

--Historian1986 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Family

I needed 20 minutes a pen and paper just to get this figured out. Is there any way that this could be written out more clearly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsdude (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Diana Mitford.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. Really no justification to have it in this article. Apterygial 07:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death?

Why is there no mention of his death? How did he die?

I've added that it was natural causes, but I don't know which disease. Best name (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir

When was he knighted and what for? 83.217.166.9 20:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

He wasn't knighted; he was a hereditary baronet. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
This fact should probably be written into the preface. It's probably a relatively little known, but nonetheless relevant - 81.110.41.5 03:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It is; he's clearly referred to as the 6th Baronet. Readers who aren't sure what a baronet is only have to click the link to the article 'baronet'. Martan 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, there are plenty of readers who are curious about the sir and won't make the connection with baronet. I think the article should be explicit about why Mosley is Sir Oswald and not hide important information in some basement. TheScotch (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Son in 1st line

there is no need to mention he is the father of Max Mosley in the first line. He has numerous children, at least one of which is probably more notable than Max. Frankly, it's irrelevant in the lead paragraph. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi C-r,
Thank you for coming here.
Sorry but Max Mosley is more known than Nicholas Mosley : 1,000,000+ hits vs 25,000 hits
But I think we can put both names : he is the father of Nicholas Mosley and Max Mosley.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. What this comes down to, I believe, is trying to discredit Oswald/Max by their connection. Why not mention in the 1st line that his father in-law was the Marquess of Curzon (one of the best statesman of the early C20th) or that his wife was Diana Mitford? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi C-r,
Oh... So when you said first that the brother was more notorious you were hidding your real feelings... You have a agenda of "discredit issues". That doesn't sound good to me !
In fact, Max Mosley is more notorious than Oswald Mosley ([http://www.google.be/search?hl=fr&q=%22Oswald+mosley%22&btnG=Rechercher&meta= 94,000 hits).
It sounds therefore to me absolutely logical to mention Max in the first lines.
(note I don't understand how talking about Max would discredit Oswald and talking about Oswald would discredit Max. There are father and son and both are famous people).
Have a good day. Ceedjee (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghits are irrelevant. Provide a citation that having Max as a son is relevant to the notability of this prominent historical figure, rather than the other way 'round. (Ditto for his baronetcy.) --Relata refero (disp.) 10:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is of course not significant for his life. But this is significant for an encyclopaedic article that gives links between people/facts/events.
Ceedjee (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this controversy seems already to be appropriately settled, but for the record let's put it this way: Oswald Mosley is not notable because he was the father of Max or Nicholas, and thus Max and Nicholas do not belong in the opening sentence. TheScotch (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

I notice that the Hitler image has been removed twice now without recourse to this page to justify. Since Mosley referred frequently to the fellow, I think it is important to have Hitler's image on the page. I am thus reverting what appears to be vandalism. Peterlewis (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia biographies do not have pictures of people other than the subject on them. The only way a pic of Hitler should be on this article is if it is of the two men standing together or shaking hands. Best name (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If you want to know what Hitler looked like, click the Hitler link. TheScotch (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Removed items were unsourced assumptions, hence entirely removable per WP:V and not valid for restoration without a source, and trivial items in an already well populated trivia section, which are discouraged on Wikipedia and, if and when present, should be concise, and contain sourced or bluelinked items with direct relevance to the subject. The point of such sections is not to list every instance where a person or entity has appeared in popular culture, but simply to show that the subject has appeared in popular culture. That "so-and-so" was based on Mosely may be a widely held belief, but remains unsourced speculation without appropriate sourcing. Deiz talk 12:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "The point of such sections is not to list every instance where a person or entity has appeared in popular culture, but simply to show that the subject has appeared in popular culture.":
Strongly disagree. There is no valid point to these sections at all, and "popular culture" is being used as a code phrase for trivia. If the subject is notable, it is by definition known to the culture at large and will inevitably have been alluded to somewhere or other. Readers of Wikipedia should recognize that all valid subjects have been alluded to, and contributors to Wikipedia should assume that readers of Wikipedia will recognize this. TheScotch (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jews

The victim of Jewish violence? Really? I know it's just a stereotype, but still. --Charles A. L. 07:39, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

- I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you objecting to the word Jewish, are you saying that Jewish groups weren't involved in violence against the BUF or are you saying the sentence should be re-worded so that the BUF don't sound like the innocent party (which they probably weren't)? --Cjrother 00:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online School Edition, the British Union of Fascists and the Union Movement (the two groups Mosley led) "were known for distributing anti-Semitic propaganda, conducting hostile demonstrations in the Jewish sections of east London, and wearing Nazi-style uniforms and insignia." This clearly suggests to me that Mosley deliberately provoked Jewish hostility, and if Encyclopaedia Britannica can clearly suggest it, then I think Wikipedia can as well. In bending over backward to appear neutral, the article as it currently stands is effectively biasing itself in favor of Mosley apologists. TheScotch (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism How?

How is this vandalism:

203.35.82.133 (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I delete a text (NPOV)

I delete the text about the witness being moved to tears in battle of cable street as it is not neutral, if it is in the text we must have a witness that says how beautiful it was to see blackshirts marching united too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.90.218 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Text replaced. Source is reliable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC).
Text is RS and NPOV.
If 83.248.90.218 wants to quote an RS who says the blackshirts are beautiful then that would be fine, too. But it's NPOV with it or without it.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Family and early life

What happened on '10 October 1915' ? The date doesn't seem to refer to anything. 

 米 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Party

The article states that Mosley fell out with the Conservative Party over the Blacks and Tans. Was he oppposed to them or did he support them? The Conservative Party first supported them and them opposed them I believe so I can't figure it out woth help of the context.

Mosley opposed the use of brutal measures to repress the Irish. David | Talk 14:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I had the same question (and I'm writing in 2007)! The article remains ambiguous the way it is written. 210.50.56.79 07:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Several years later it still remains ambiguous. It currently reads, "Mosley was at this time falling out with the Conservatives over the issue of Irish policy, and the use of the Black and Tans to suppress the Irish population." I'm going to change this for now to "Mosley was at this time falling out with the Conservatives over Irish policy ["the issue of" is superfluous], objecting to the use of the Black and Tans to suppress the Irish population," and if anyone has a better idea, have at it, please. TheScotch (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosley was responding to a wave of press publicity at the time. At the end of his life he was invited to speak to Ireland's barristers on this, at the King's Inns in 1978. He also had houses in Galway - until a fire - and later near Fermoy in Cork. He was seen as a rare and early spokesman criticizing the activities of the Black and Tans and remained popular regarding this matter in Ireland, as distinct from his later fascist politics.86.42.201.176 (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

As currently used in this article "Cultural Impact" is a code phrase for trivia. I'll give interested persons sufficient time to move into the main article anything from this section they consider worth salvaging, then return eventually and delete the section and whatever in it happens to remain. TheScotch (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the pre-war items are of significance but the post-war ones slowly descend into trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

My original posting (above) takes a neutral position about what should be moved and what should be removed, but just to push things along, let me consider the pre-war items. They're conveniently sectioned off. We have Everard Webley in Aldous Huxley's Point Counter Point, "a character" in H. G. Wells's The Holy Terror, and "Sir Roderick Spode" in several P.G. Wodehouse novels. I read Point Counterpoint many years ago and don't really remember the Webley character. The Wikipedia Point Counterpoint article doubts he was based on Mosley, mostly because the novel was published in 1928 while Mosley was still a member of the Labour Party, and this strikes me, prima facie, as a convincing argument. Even though I'm a big Wells fan, I'd never heard of The Holy Terror (Wells published many books, quite a few long neglected), so I won't comment about that one except to say whether it was pre-war technically depends on what part of 1939 it was published, for whatever that may be worth. I've read several Wodehouse books but don't remember the Spode character. According to the Spode Wikipedia article, only the first Spode adventure is pre-war. TheScotch (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is mostly fair comment. The connecting thread is that the three writers were eminent persons for their time, and for ours. As for the Wells book, whenever it was published, it was certainly written befire the war because of the time lag between submitting a book to a publisher and its eventual publication. The exact timing would not seem to matter much apart from Huxley. It was a lot easier to attack Mosley after the war, after he had been interned as an enemy sympathiser, than before it when he had gangs of bully-boys at his disposal (a feature of the Wells book). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

The Scotch is right. Unless Huxley had unique powers of second sight, Webley in Point Counter Point could not possibly have been based on Mosley. Roderick Spode, hpwever, clearly is, but is not 'Sir Roderick': he went straight from Mr Spode to Lord Sidcup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.5.197 (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "It was a lot easier to attack Mosley after the war...":

Presumably. Is this why you find the pre-war allusions more significant? Or is just that the allusions you consider significant (because the authors were eminent) happened to be pre-war (more or less)?

Re: "As for the Wells book, whenever it was published, it was certainly written befire the war because of the time lag between submitting a book to a publisher and its eventual publication."

Maybe, but Wells was extremely prolific, which suggests that he wrote fast (and might have been published fast too), and it also depends on why we're distinguishing pre-war and post-war (how about during the war?). Wells was canny enough to realize that war was imminent before it was actually declared.

If this were an article about D. H. Lawrence, I could see managing to include a mention of Point Counterpoint, partly because the character based on Lawrence is the most significant character in the book, but mostly because Huxley and Lawrence were strong friends, which is to say that Huxley was a part of Lawrence's life. Even so, I think an article about D. H. Lawrence could easily do without mentioning Point Counterpoint. It occurs to me, though, that Wells and Wodehouse (and Huxley, if the 1928 obstacle is somehow over-ridden) might fit into a section having to do with contemporaneous reaction to Mosley.TheScotch (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The social and cultural reactions to Mosley's activities are a crucial component of the story. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

Since "the story" is merely the public part of the biography of this particular subject, that is, person, I'm skeptical about the "crucial" bit, but if the article is to include "social and cultural reactions" (a rather vague phrase) , and I've already conceded it could reasonably include some such thing, then that section needs to be written in English prose, with actual English sentences coming together logically to form an actual English paragraph. It needs not to comprise a list of miscellaneous information. TheScotch (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also it is interesting how the folk memory of the Battle of Cable Street has changed from what it was - a battle between the left and the police (who were guarding / separating the Blackshirts) - into a battle between the left and the Blackshirts themselves. The social and cultural aspects are important as they often direct how we understand past events. "Two myths have grown up around the event, which of course was a milestone in the long history of working class struggle. One is that the opposition to the Mosley fascists was almost entirely Jewish. The other is that the "battle" was between the protesters and the Blackshirts. It was not - it was a battle with the police." (see this link).86.42.201.176 (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edward VIII

What evidence is there for the statement that the Duke of Windsor "approved of the BUF campaign for Edward to keep his throne"? I am not aware that Edward supported any campaign for him to keep the throne.124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) ...

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online School Edition, "Winston Churchill, then out of power, was [Edward VII's] only notable ally [in Edward's "attempts to gain the royal family's acceptance of Mrs. Simpson", the failure of which led directly to his abdication]." This suggests that either Mosley was not Edward's ally or that Mosley was not notable. I see there is already a "citation needed" notice next to the passage you question, and it appears to have been in place for some time. I vote to delete the passage, and if someone wants to restore it, let's require an accompanying citation. TheScotch (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the passage. Please post explanation here before restoring it. Thanks. TheScotch (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  • You should probably should consult the real Encyclopædia Britannica rather than a school one, Edward VIII had many more important frieds for instance, Lord Beaverbrook was a far more important ally than Churchill and Churchill was as I understand it, basically a pariah at the time (not to mention not a rich owner of many newspapers like Lord Beaverbrooke) either way I think Mosley's support of the King is notable enough to be included here, even though Lord Beaverbrooke dismissed it in his memoir on the topic as an "embarrasment" it was still important to Mosely and his party. Threadnecromancer (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

Right-wing?

I have changed the description of the BUF as 'becoming increasingly right-wing... ' to becoming increasingly authoritarian...'. The right-wing label really does not fit as Mosley was a former Labour minister who was on a clear path towards more radical Socialism with every year he lived. The majority of his supporters were also drawn from the Labour party. The parallels here with the National Socialists of Germany (Nazi party) and Hitler’s social policy are strong. The BUF does not fit into our traditional view of left and right in Britain and so should best be avoided in this article.

Anyone wondering where the thinking behind this comes from should bear in mind that there is a strong argument that Fascism is a type of Communism and both belong on the autocratic state controlled left, whilst it is anarchy (or at least the absence of laws, depending on whether one believes in natural order) that is the logical extension of the individual freedoms cherished by right wingers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.132.225 (talk) 17:32, 8 February, 2007 (UTC)

"There is a strong argument that Fascism is a type of Communism"--is that why Fascists and Communists were fighting on the streets across Europe in the 1930's? There is no argument at all for such a position, except by those who use ideology as a substitute for knowing history. Troglo (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the terms right and left in respect to politics are vague and fairly meaningless, but this is pretty much beside the point as far as this article currently stands because the terms Labour Party and Fascism are not vague and meaningless. The problem with the article, in my reading, is that it doesn't give us a clear idea how Mosely evolved (if this is the appropriate word) in his thinking from Labour to Fascism. The "tour of Italy" bit doesn't really cut it. (Fascism may be like communism in that it is statist, but it is unlike communism in that it is anti-democratic in theory--not just in practice--and in that it officially believes in a merging of corporate and state power. Anti-semitism and racism are strong and important components of NAZI-ism. There was, of course, plenty of practical anti-semitism in communist Russia, but this has nothing to do with the doctrine of communism. The "logical extension" of individual rights is in the eye of the beholder, but it's unnecessarily confusing to refer to libertarianists under the general rubric "right wingers".) TheScotch (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Mosley was indeed ex-Labour but he was also ex-Tory. And you may be missing the significance of the prefix "ex-". And it is ahistorical to equate anarchism with the right or to think that authoritarianism is solely or even primarily the province of the left. 31.53.204.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Birthplace?

The main text says he was born near Burton-on-Trent, but the box has London. Which is right? PrivateSponge (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

According to his article in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography(vol 39, page 469), Mosley was born in London at 47 Hill Street, Mayfair, with no immediately cited authority. The General Registration Office Register of Births Index should list him with the registration district named.Cloptonson (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC) I have discovered his name in the General Register Office Index of Births in England and Wales, page 399, for October-November-December 1896, registration district of St George, Hanover Square (London).Cloptonson (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC) I would like to insert the details of his birth in London in the article, preferably with consent of the user who placed his birth near Burton-on-Trent. I wonder did Mosley claim the ancestral Rolleston estate as his birthplace, in preference to the city, when writing about himself?Cloptonson (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Having allowed a month's 'notice', I have amended birthplace details from Rollestone near Burton-on-Trent to Mayfair, London, with citations to Oxford DNB and GRO Index of Births. Reference to Rollestone has been moved to earlier in the family background section to acknowledge it was the seat of his family.Cloptonson (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2013

Footnote 1 is incorrect. A baronet is not a member of the peerage. The peerage is confined "peers of the realm" of whom the lowest rank is "baron". Formerly, all peers were entitled to sit in the House of Lords. This has never applied to baronets. Their title is hereditary but it is only in that respect that it resembles a (non-life) peerage.

5.81.250.43 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn should take a look at Baronet where he will find that the comment by 5.81.250.43 is correct. Not to bother, the correction was made to the article long ago. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oswald Mosley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail

I changed the mention of the Daily Mail. In the 1930s it was not a tabloid size newspaper, but a broadsheet. It became a tabloid format paper in the 1970s, I believe.Martinscholes 22:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It was always a "popular paper", pretty much the first such in fact. Lord Northcliffe's immense political power in WW1 came because he owned both "The Times" and the "Daily Mail", the leading papers in each market segment. The name "tabloid" came later.Paulturtle (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Support from Aneurin Bevan

The Article states that Mosley received support from Aneurin Bevan regarding the New Party;

"Dissatisfied with the Labour Party, Mosley quickly founded the New Party. Its early parliamentary contests, in the 1931 Ashton-under-Lyne by-election and subsequent by-elections, arguably had a spoiler effect in splitting the left-wing vote and allowing Conservative candidates to win. Despite this, the organisation gained support among many Labour and Conservative politicians who agreed with his corporatist economic policy, and among these were Aneurin Bevan and Harold Macmillan. It also gained the endorsement of the Daily Mail newspaper, headed at the time by Harold Harmsworth (later created 1st Viscount Rothermere)."

This is not given with a citation.

Whereas in the Aneurin Bevan page, a section reads

"Soon after he entered parliament Bevan was briefly attracted to Oswald Mosley's arguments, becoming one of the 17 signatories of the Mosley Memorandum in the context of the MacDonald government's repeated economic crises, including the doubling of unemployment levels.[9] However, in the words of his biographer John Campbell, "he breached with Mosley as soon as Mosley breached with the Labour Party"."

The second section has a source but there is no citation to Campbell.

Presumably if Aneurin Bevan had rejected Mosley's split then he would not have supported the New Party. Perhaps the first section is still accurate but requires revision.

DarkyDu (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Market Drayton

The Market Drayton article currently says this:

"The 1930s British fascist leader Oswald Mosley was born nearby in 1896, at Betton Hall, the home of his mother's parents. When his parents separated, Oswald and his brother went with their mother to live in Smithfield Road. Mosley attended a dame school in Shropshire Street until he went to public school at the age of eight. Apart from holidays he never lived in Drayton again.
"Mosley was deeply ashamed of their reduced circumstances and he did everything to hide the years in Drayton. Their middle-class status contrasted with the huge estate of his paternal grandparents in Staffordshire. Years later, following the death of their mother, he obtained her diaries from his brother and burned them.
"In the 1930s, at the height of his notoriety, he returned to the town, where he held a meeting in the square."

But none of this is supported by any sources, however, and it is not corroborated by anything in this article. Is it all correct, particularly the details about schooling? As another editor has pointed out, it would be usual to go to preparatory school at age 8 and to public school at age 13. If sources could be found, perhaps the material should be added here also. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


All the above was based on my interviews with then-surviving Draytonians - for instance a woman who remembered Mosley's first day at the Dame School - when an article appeared in the press, I was contacted by a relative of the photographer who took the pictures of him on his return to Drayton in the 1930s - there were two pix one in classic fashion with the loud-speaker car and Fascist bodyguards in the square in the middle of Drayton and one for which Mosley posed afterwards at the Corbet Arms - both should now be in Shropshire Archives.

Keith Pybus

79.79.196.107 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Error?

The article has

His second son inherited the baronetcy,

but this is not consistent with the list of children, according to which Nicholas was Oswald's second child, but his first son.

86.148.153.153 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yes, that looks like a simple error. I have corrected it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oswald Mosley. 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:

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) 12:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Fiction

The proper place for fictional representations, such as his affair with the non-existent wife of the equally non-existent Tommy Shelby MP, is in the section of the page entitled 'In popular culture', not the introduction. There is even a mention of his appearance in Peaky Blinders there. Markaeologist (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mirror support

Currently article states: The Mirror piece was a guest article by Daily Mail owner Viscount Rothermere and an apparent one-off; despite these briefly warm words for the BUF, the paper was so vitriolic in its condemnation of European fascism that Nazi Germany added the paper's directors to a hit-list in the event of a successful Operation Sea Lion

(With a dead link to the an article called "The Darnkess in the Mirror" at the Tribune.)

Recently reading more about this there seems a growing consensus in another direction. Here at the independent ( https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/revealed-the-fascist-past-of-the-daily-mirror-77871.html ) we read:

"But the idea of the 1930s Mirror as a great champion of the anti-Nazi cause is largely mythical. And there is no indication that Cecil King ever changed his politics. King remained an admirer of Oswald Mosley, announcing in his memoirs that Mosley had been "the outstanding politician of his generation" and that his only mistake was to have "chosen the wrong side during the war"."

The same article states:

"What is less well known is that the Mail's former stablemate the Daily Mirror was just as pro-fascist. On Monday, 22 January, 1934 the Mirror ran the headline "Give the Blackshirts a helping hand". The paper went one further than the Mail, urging readers to join Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and giving the address to which to send membership applications."

A similar theme is taken up by Roy Greenslade at the Guardian here - https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley - in particular pointing out that the questions of the newspaper ownership are not as clear as is sometimes assumed. The way things are wriiten makes it sound like Rothermere had nothing to do with the Mirror and just randomly wrote an article supporting the Blackshirts once in the Mirror and they published it while otherwise being critical of fascism - that appears to not be the case.

The Independent article notes that the paper became extremely patriotic during the war - was that the reason why the Germans planned to target it? I tried googling the link to Operation Sea lion but couldn't find anything.

What is the correct way to handle this situation with a dead link? I realise this is a contentious issue with the association used to this day to attack both newsspapers so think it is probably best done by consensus but as it is currently written it doesm't seem to match the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:987:BB00:E87A:CB70:7495:CAC (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits and reverts

Hi Mosleyifer - I'm putting a note here to explain my recent reverts. Please also read through the links in the welcome template I left on your talk page. In short, you can't attribute an assertion that he had a great impact on society to 'oswaldmosley.com' - you'd need a reliably published, independent source saying that, ideally an academic history book. You certainly can't make a connection between his ideas and Corbyn's using a Guardian article that doesn't mention Mosley. The sources must explicitly support the statements you are making - any 'joining the dots', or combining multiple sources to come to a conclusion they don't mention, is covered by WP:OR. If you have any questions about any of this, please let me know. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Clearly gossip

"During this marriage he had an extended affair with his wife's younger sister Lady Alexandra Metcalfe, and with their stepmother, Grace Curzon, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston, the U.S.-born second wife and widow of Lord Curzon of Kedleston."

This is quite a claim and so I expected there to be some source, some reference to information, historical nonfiction, memoirs, whatever, that could back up such an inflammatory statement. But there are none. And the page is locked so I can't even request that someone come up with citations for such personal details. There is nothing about this affair on the page of Grace Curzon and the sources for it on Alexandra Metcalfe's bio are laughably inaccurate and can not be verified.

It seems like there is so much dislike for this person that people will believe and include any information that would make him look immoral which is, frankly, beneath Wikipedia's standards. This is not a historical version of TMZ. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometime in the six years since this entry was created, the page for Alexandra has removed any reference to her having an affair with Mosley. On the other hand, the page for Grace Curzon has added that Mosley said he had sex not only with Grace, but with both of his wife’s sisters (Irene before he was married, and Alexandra after). The source cited is different from the one in the page for Irene Curzon, which only mentions her affair with Mosley, and does not mention his affair with Grace or Alexandra. The page for Cynthia uses yet a different source for saying Mosley had affairs with Alexandra and Grace. Minicarmen (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Abrupt mention of New Party in lead

The lead says "The New Party became the British Union of Fascists (BUF) in 1932." Unfortunately there is no prior explanation of what the New Party is. I'm guessing this is the result of some recent edit-warring. Muzilon (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

New Party

Anachronistic error - Sir Alfred Harmsworth, Lord Northcliffe had died, with his peerage, in 1922 and would not have been alive to have headed the Daily Mail and to endorse Mosley's New Party (formed 1931). Who was proprietor of the Mail at that point in Mosley's career?Cloptonson (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC) - After checking Wiki article on Daily Mail, I have corrected the proprietor's name to Northcliffe's successor son, Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere. I left the 'citation needed' insert untouched, as I am unsure how soon in the life of the New Party Rothermere showed interest.Cloptonson (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The 1st Viscount Rothermere was Northcliffe's brother, not his son. Valetude (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mosley Memorandum

Is the semi-keynesian Mosley Memorandum on public use? If so, where can i find it? 212.146.45.74 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Works of Mosley

Why aren't his essays and books listed in this article? Many other people have their works listed at the bottom, of their article. XenogenesisX2 (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction/Lede

The introductory section has a lot of detail. Perhaps most of it should be transferred to later sections. Mcljlm (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Quote sources

Diana Mosley's autobiography {both 1st and 2nd editions are at Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/lifeofcontrastsa0000mosl/mode/2up; https://archive.org/details/lifeofcontrastsa0000mosl_x6i4/page/n1/mode/2up} is cited for 4 quotes {I've quoted directly from DM rather than the article}:

"The Liberal Westminster Gazette wrote that Mosley was the most polished literary speaker ...";
"The Nation wrote: “The resignation of Sir Oswald ..."
"He wrote a memorandum, described thirty years later (1961) by R. H. S. Crossman:‘... this brilliant memorandum was ..."
"‘When Sir Oswald Mosley sat down after his Free Trade Hall speech in Manchester ... wrote the Manchester Guardian soon after the 1931 election."

Since she mentions her sources perhaps each quote's exact source could be cited. Mcljlm (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've edited those quotes or their introductory sentences to cite Lady Mosely's autobiography, since we don't actually have citations to the Westminster Gazette, the Manchester Guardian, etc. If someone comes up with specific cites to those sources, the supporting ref can be changed and the wording altered, but at this time we're relying on what her autobiography says, not actually on those primary sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. In "The Liberal Westminster Gazette wrote that Mosley was:the" should the colon be a quotation mark followed by a space?
Maybe the following would be better without the commas:
The Nation and Athenaeum wrote,"
Richard Crossman wrote, "
shortly after the 1931 election, Mosley
Mcljlm (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I usually prefer colons before quotes rather than commas, so I'm not sure why I used commas in these instances - I've converted them to colons (I think no punctuation in that situation can be confusing to the reader). I've fixed the other two as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"New Party" links to the New Party of China, not the defunct party of England, in which context it appears.

- That seems to be fixed now (although there is nothing in the newly linked to article)

Zany Fun With Sir Oswald

If you feel it's necessary to clutter up this rather serious article with an infantile list of pop culture references, you really need to include one very important and useful item which is mysteriously absent. I refer of course to "Oswald Mosley The Blackshirt Funnyman", a one-off strip which appeared in Viz Comics issue 95. 86.132.249.222 (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oswald_Mosley/Archive_1&oldid=1255541347"