Talk:Oswald Mosley

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)

Plaque

So, the Brits have placed a plaque in memory of leftist thugs, who violently prevented individuals their right to walk in public. Political correctness gone mad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.35.18 (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It is the Tower Hamlets Environment Trust gone mad.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the commies took over tower hamlet with the help of the Jews and now the place is run by Islamists app, Tower Hamlettes is living proof that Mosley was right, let the foreigners and commies have their plaque, — Preceding unsigned comment added by U6j65 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If he became PM

What a great man Sir Oswald was, pity he was never PM then we could have had a nice, peaceful, picture perfect Britain. Now if anyone`s got a problem with that come on I support Sir Oswald Mosley and his politics and so I will to the day I die. Come on don`t hide from the Political Correcness lot. Announce your admiration for him. I know their`s many of you out their. Oh and for any of the PC brigade`s information I`m not a bloody skinhead Nazi, I don`t want to go out and kill everyone who does`nt agree with me. I`m an admirer of Sir Oswald and I dream about what Britain would have been like if he was PM. Good Day. God Save the Queen.

I don't see what this has to do with the writing of the article. Save your comments for a political site or something.

Oh yes what a 'great man'. If being a Mosley supporter means having the grammar and spelling that you have then I think Britain is much better off today. What a dickhead!--217.203.179.64 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Internal link

"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)

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)

I see what you did there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.159.81 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 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)

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)

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 is (and was) not a tabloid nor a broadsheet. It is, and always has been, toilet paper and nothing more.--217.203.179.64 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 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)

He had the worlds most common and lethal STD. It's called life.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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@gmail.com 21:46 (GMT) 16 November 2006

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)

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)

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.

• Is it relevant to Jimbo Wales that Larry Sanger created wikipedia with him ?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Image copyright problem with File:Diana Mitford.jpg

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vandalism How?

How is this vandalism:

• Mosley becomes ruler of England after the alien invasion is defeated in Superman: War of the Worlds.

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)