Talk:Diana Mitford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Atheism[edit]

Can anyone provide links that Mitford was an atheist? I cannot find any reference to religion in her obiturary: [1]

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BUF[edit]

a lifelong supporter of the British Union of Fascists, to which she made financial contributions until 1994.

This cannot be right as the BUF ceased to exist in 1940, I'm removing the later part of this statment, and the word 'lifelong' from the first clause. Perhaps the author meant a life long supporter of fascism and financially supported fascist organizations other than the BUF, of this I have no information. Mintguy 20:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

After deleting the above, it has returned in the following form

After her marriage she was a lifelong supporter of the British Union of Fascists, to which she made financial contributions until the 1994 death of its organiser Jeffrey Hamm. She often attended its annual dinners.

The BUF ceased to exist in 1940, Jeffrey Hamm died in 1980 and he was the leader on the "Union Movement". Please please, check your facts!! Mintguy 17:58, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Appologies for missing the appearance of the talk link. I was rearranging the text and I'm afriad I didn't notice you deletion of the above text. I have changed to sentence to refer to the Union Movement but I have been unable to find any references to Jeffrey Hamm's death other than being in 1994. I believe that Mosley died in 1980 are you sure you're not thinking of that?

McClelland[edit]

"She later married Scot Gabriel McClelland."

I can't find any evidence for the above mentioned marriage. Am I missing something or is someone mistaken? Cjrother 18:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find any references to this marriage so I removed the sentence. Cjrother 14:29, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Diana Mitford, Lady Mosley[edit]

Is this title correct? I would have thought that she wouldn't have been called Mitford after she married Mosley. Should the comma be replaced by "later known as" or should it just say Diana Mitford as it used to? Cjrother 03:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Tennant[edit]

Stella Tennant is a granddaughter of Deborah. Stella appears in the upcoming Burberry campaign.

Supermodels[edit]

Recently added by an anonymous user: "Two of her grandchildren are supermodels. [The Sisters by Mary Lovell]"

Does anyone know who these two are? There can't be that many supermodels can there? I have no idea what the text in the single square bracket is. Cjrother 04:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the bit in the square brackets may have been an attempt at a reference. Anyway I have removed it. Cjrother 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It was clearly a footnote. I've restored it. Even an ill-formed reference is better than no reference at all. - Nunh-huh 04:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Incarceration with Mosley[edit]

I believe there were other men incarcerated at Holloway (women's prison), namely, Major de Laessoe and at least one other man, with whom they shared quarters with (3 couples to a cottage). When Churchill cleared the way for the Mosely to join Diana, he did so for all the remaining couples incarcerated under the wartime Rule 18B.

Fair use rationale for Image:Diana Mitford-F.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Diana Mitford-F.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 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 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hitler, Goebbels, Mussolini[edit]

I think it's amusing that someone felt it necessary to "decorate" this page with a Hilter/Mussolini meeting photograph as well as a phtoto of Goebbels, whom was mentioned, but is clearly NOT Ms. Mitford. I don't want a revert war, but urge that these two photos be deleted. I also see that the over-eager and destructive Betacommandbot destroyed the image of the article's subject, but I find it hard to believe no 'free' 60-year-old public domain (and/or "free") image of her exists. She was quite beautiful, no one denies that, despite what one might believe about her political views. - Nhprman 22:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Checking through the contribution history it appears that photos have been added and deleted several times. I agree that unrelated photos of Goebbels, Hitler, Mussolini are not really suitable for this article. A photo of the subject with them or anyone else would be suitable though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not decoration to insert pictures of nazis she met and are mentioned. They were central to her life. The nazis were not very amusing people, by the way. Peterlewis (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It very much *is* decoration when these people are NOT the subject of the article. Unless Mrs. Mosley is pictured IN the vehicle with Mussolini and Hitler, it's irrelevant. The photo of Goebbels' Identity Documents here is LAUGHABLY irrelevent. Placing photos people who have met or had interractions with the subject is not standard at WP. And no, the Nazis were not "amusing." Who on earth said they were? What's amusing is the rather juvenile attempt at OVERKILL in identifying this person as a Nazi. We get it without the photos. - Nhprman 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thus speaks a sage. Perhaps if you related your concerns about photos in a moderate way, it might help to progress your concerns. WP is an encyclopedia with pictures in the 21st century. Too many artciles are just text only (and much of the text is badly written and out of date, often to 1911 to be precise). Diana Mitford hobnobbed with top nazis and that point is worth emphasising with photos. Ot perhaps you don't like the emphasis? Peterlewis (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a "sage," I'm simply engaging in conversation. I'm a huge fan of photos in articles. That idiotic Betacommandbot destroyed tens of thousands of perfectly good photos without any chance for the uploaders to put proper documentation on them. So please don't lecture me about photos - go find ones that take the place of what was lost during that bot's destructive mini-reign of terror. That said, we don't need to put photos of everyone she "hobnobbed" with in the article to make the point. The text really does make the point just fine. It would be ludicrous to put 4-5 photos of folks each article's subject met and spoke with in every article here, and it would make it little more than a celebrity gossip site if it became a common practice. And I'm sure neo-Nazis would love it if Hitler showed up frequently on pages here, decorating articles of people he "hobnobbed" with. Not a good plan. Note also that Diana's sister Unity Mitford has photos on her page as well, but they directly relate to HER life, for example, she frequented Hitler's retreat, attended that rally pictured, and drove in a Mercedes like the one pictured. The photo of Hitler is gratuitious there, too, unfortunately. - Nhprman 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Please also see: [1] which gives the following guidance: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." While in general "Nazism" is relative, the event and document portrayed in the photos were not relevant to Mitford. - Nhprman 04:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The photos in question are not relevant to this article. A photo of her with Hitler or Goebbels would be relevant (I don't recall that she ever met Mussolini), but random photos of them, let alone of their Reichstag rail passes (!) are not relevant. They should be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OMosley.jpg[edit]

The image Image:OMosley.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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Her occupations[edit]

Her occupations or professions are listed thusly:

"Editor, author, writer, reviewer, publisher, translator"

Can somebody, please, explain the difference betwen an "author" and a "writer"? Also, a "reviewer" is not usually listed as a separate occupation, unless it's the only or main job the person in question ever performed for a publication.

Trying to pump up a person's curriculum with ridiculous distinctions is actually demeaning to that person, you know...? I think she deserves better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.34.151 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that(s quite right, why not add "typewriter, stenograph, and eraserwoman". --Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It's just over-zealous school kids. You are free to change it. Span (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gallery[edit]

I added a photo to the gallery, of the Mitford sisters in 1935, but the size of it isn't as good and clear as it is in the Mitford family article. When I try to add stuff like |thumb|250px|, what happens is that |thumb|250px| just appears in the description of the photo in the gallery. How can it be made larger? Oel43 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrections and changes.[edit]

I have made several, from what my English skills allow, corrections to the article. Frankly I found it riddled with bazaar non encyclopaedic phrases, too much weight put on certain things, and blatant factual errors from what I could see. I would like to express that if any of my changes are incorrect or perhaps could do with improvement, I will gladly like to see people point this out. Thank you. (visiting her grave today gave me a new interest in this rather dubious lady, I must say) --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

All good changes, thank you for that. Most of the article text seems to have been inspired by one particular biography or other and the informal 'cosy' register has crossed over. I'm not sure the article has had a major reworking since then. All improvements very welcome. Best wishes Span 23:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your positive response :) --Τασουλα (Amira) (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Desert Island Discs[edit]

There was a claim that the discs chosen by Diana Mitford was the same as Golda Meir. According to the BBC's Desert Island Disc archive Mrs Meir never appeared on the show. Therefore I have removed the comparison to Golda Meir's choices. 64.26.155.185 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I had wondered about that but hadn't had a chance to search it out yet. Well noticed.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:English Nazi collaborators[edit]

Diana appears in this category (along with a number of men who were members of the British Free Corps) but her husband Oswald Mosley does not. I suggest that this is illogical, and I propose to remove her from this category, unless anyone can produce a citation for any acts of collaboration which she committed during WWII. She does not appear to have been put on trial. Alekksandr (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch - agree with your action. I find WP lists a bit problematic at times and this is another such example.Nickm57 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diana Mitford. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 16:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diana Mitford. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 22:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diana Mitford. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 03:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)