Talk:Oswald Mosley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Baronetcies.

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

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)

---

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)

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.

"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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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

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

---

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)

Contents 1 Fair use rationale for Image:Mosleyarrest.jpg 2 Son in 1st line 3 Trivia 4 Family 5 Adolf Hitler

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)