Talk:Tom Driberg

Untitled

T E Lawrence died in 1935. So the story of him meeting Driberg in 1940 suggests a typo.

Quote needed

I once read the following (the words are to the best of my memory): "To write an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would be like writing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera". Google has proved fruitless in my search for its author. Can anyone help? -- JackofOz 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it. The exact quote is: "To have published an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would have been like publishing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera". It was in the Times obituary. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Work

The link to Great Work redirects to Magnum Opus, a multi-concept page. Should the Alister Crowley section be extended to specify/link to Thelema or Thelemic mysticism? Please Note - I write from a position of complete ignorance, as my casual attempt to link and learn ended in confusion. Perhaps ... solemnly pledged himself to the Thelemic mystical concept of the Great Work in the presence of the Beast 666. Autodidactyl (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient referencing?

"He is the man who brought pederasty into disrepute" is referenced only to Wikiquote's page on Winston Churchill, and on that page we discover that the quote is listed under the "Unsourced" heading. I can't see that this is a good enough reference, therefore, for a Wikipedia article. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

It is important to state hear, the extent to which Driberg participated in his homosexual proclivities. He was a keen cottager and any book on the man would link him to the most depraved acts of perversion, including many of the infamous gatherings set up by Ronny Kray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlVKrish (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality disclosed before his death

We say However after his death, it was revealed that he had been ... a [sic] undisclosed homosexual".

Well, it was certainly generally known well before he died that he was a homosexual. Churchill, who died in 1965, said that Driberg gave sodomy a bad name; that was at least 11 years before Driberg died, and probably quite a bit longer than 11 years. So the word was out there, even if Driberg did not personally ever publicly acknowledge it. But what does "publicly" even mean? Gay people when they come out do not put an ad in the Public Notices of newspapers telling all and sundry about their sexual orientation. They tell their family and friends, and the word spreads. Just because he didn't have "homosexual" on his resume, doesn't mean it was only disclosed after his death. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sodomy was illegal, as was any gross indecency in public. Importuning was illegal, that is just offering to perform sexual acts, for money or not. The police concentrated on venues likely to be hosting these activities. Being gay per-se was not indictable as there was no evidence.203.194.47.168 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Article expansion

I am beginning an expansion of this article into a comprehensive biography. I will shortly post a revised structure, and new sections and text will be added. Comments on the new material will be welcome, though I ask at this stage that these be made on this talkpage, rather than by alteration to the text. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all to the good, but my preferred MO when doing a major re-write is to work with what's already there, rather than to remove existing information entirely, even pro tempore. After all, people are still looking at the article, while you're working on it. Be that as it may, though, I particularly look forward to seeing again all the points of information found in the following paragraphs, from the former "Legacy" section:

He was created a life peer, as Baron Bradwell, of Bradwell-on-Sea in the County of Essex, shortly before his death at Paddington, London. His autobiography, Ruling Passions, was published posthumously in 1977 and disclosed the conflict between the three passions that drove his life: his homosexuality,<ref>Ball, 2004</ref> his left-wing political beliefs and his allegiance to the High Church tendency of the Church of England. Winston Churchill, who died in 1965, had said of him, "Tom Driberg is the sort of person who gives sodomy a bad name."<ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5316833.html A.N. Wilson in the (London) ''Evening Standard'']</ref> Driberg's will insisted that at his memorial service, the reader excoriate him for his sins rather than praise him for his virtues. Driberg set the crosswords for Private Eye for some years, under the pseudonym "Tiresias". Peter Cook, who provided financial backing to Private Eye, refers to him in a Derek and Clive recording from 1977 as "Lord Driberg, or Lord Bradwell I think he's called", and has him wearing "fine fishnet stockings" and accompanied by a "chicken".<ref>''[[Derek and Clive Come Again]]'', 'Back of the Cab' (Track 8).</ref>

Some of this information is already back, I think, and some will obviously re-appear; but I think it would be a great shame to lose the Churchill quote, details of his involvement with Private Eye, and the cultural reference by Peter Cook. Apart from anything else, this sort of information makes an article more interesting, I think; and, when it is clearly RS, it's perfectly valid. I note, on the other hand, that the information regarding Driberg's will was unsupported - perhaps you can fix that? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily restored most of the "legacy" information, though not the Derek and Clive stuff which is pure trivia. The other material removed (re KGB, honeytraps etc) was not reliable information; the whole question of Driberg's purported relations with the KGB, other agencies and MI5 needs presenting with the utmost care. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! I have to differ on the Peter Cook/Derek and Clive information, though - I think it's fascinating to see what someone like Cook made of Driberg's interests, as, through his satirical works, he was a prominent social and political commentator at the time; and, is it really any more trivial than the Churchill quote? Peter Cook is hardly unknown and without influence. Otherwise, keep up the good work. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Churchill quote is in a different league. Quite apart from the mordant wit, it usefully demonstrates that Driberg's sex life was well known, at least in parliamentary circles. As to the other, mockery of the recently-dead should not be confused with satire. Brianboulton (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But it's not as though Cook confined himself to commenting on the recently dead; and, the comment is fiercely satirical, from someone outside parliamentary circles, which, I think, makes it all the more interesting. So, I don't think I am confusing "mockery of the dead" with satire, frankly. A dictionary definition of "satire" which I have in front of me reads, "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." This was a speciality of Cook's, and he was a well-known satirist of the time; but I think the main point is that his remarks provide a contemporary commentary specifically on Driberg and his legacy, from someone who clearly was well aware of Driberg's place in politics. But, that's where I'll leave it for now, thanks for reading! Nortonius (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, to my mind Peter Cook himself is notable, had a clear affect on culture (*especially* British culture) and so what he said/wrote about others seems worthy of inclusion in WIkipedia to me. A sourced quote of what he thought of Driberg is pertinent to our understanding of how Driberg was regarded at the time. Regardless of what we might think of the tone of his 'Derek and Clive' script/performance, if we think it is satire or if we think it is mockery...he wrote the words, he said the words, the words are verifiable. I think that the quoted material should probably be kept. Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that we should endeavour to preserve information from earlier versions; it isn't just a matter of respect for the "recent dead" (although surely 35 years is pushing that term somewhat), there is also the matter of respect for the many editors who have contributed to this article.

For the Churchil quote, I found what I think is a better reference - a book from 1974 [1]. I think quoting from that Evening Standard piece is less than idea, given the somewhat discursive nature of the piece.

I also feel that we should include the quote from Peter Cook. I think it is entirely appropriate; it shows contemporaneous attitudes from a well-known source, and I feel it adds to encyclopaedic understanding of the topic. I do not consider it 'trivial'.

I am surprised that we do not have a section headed "Homosexuality" (as there was previously), or perhaps "Sexuality". Lumping this in with "Allegations of treachery" is quite odd. I note the quotation mentioned at the top of this page, "To have published an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would have been like publishing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera". I cannot verify that specific quotation, and nor am I suggesting we use it; however, I do agree with the meaning of it. A simple web-search for "Driberg" (in standard Google, or news, or books) clearly demonstrates that a massive amount of published information about this person concerns his sexuality, sexual predilections and the allegations of various scandals. So whilst I am certainly not advocating tabloidesque content, I feel that in order to present the subject with due balance and weight, we really must cover these areas in more detail. Chzz  ►  22:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

On the various issues raised above

• Peter Cook quote: I still consider it trivial Daily Star quality abuse, but now that the article is developing into a fully rounded form, the quote can be included as part of the general appraisal of Driberg's life.
• Churchill quote: It would be useful to see what the rest of the page says, to see if it actually clarifies when Churchill made the statement. This could easily be a Churchill myth - something he's supposed to have said, but no one can place it. I agree it is a better source than Wilson, which it predates by 27 years - it may indeed have been Wilson's source.
• Homosexuality: I agree with the Maria Callas quote, and if you study the article you will see that Driberg's sexuality is a consistent theme throughout, as it was through his life. There is no need for a "Homosexuality" section, as the theme is discussed or at least referred to in all the following sections: lead, Lancing, Oxford, William Hickey, Independent member, Labour member, Marriage, Out of parliament, Barking, and Allegations of treachery. It will be discussed further in the Appraisal section when this is drafted. Several scandals are presently included: the "three-in-a-bed" romp that Beaverbrook rescued Driberg from, the Edinburgh blowjob, the Krays, etc. The reader is constantly being reminded of this sordid aspect of Driberg's life, which certainly isn't being, as you say, "lumped in" with the "Allegations of treachery" section. My fear has been, rather, that I was possibly overdoing this angle; as biographer Wheen says, "Readers might get the idea that Tom Driberg's only interest in life was sucking men's cocks" (Wheen, p. 4). Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Cook, "trivial Daily Star quality abuse"?! As a doctor (which I am), I recommend you listen to the Derek and Clive corpus ten times, and then we can disuss your thoughts in detail ;o) - all joking aside, though, no, I don't think you're overdoing that aspect in your revision, and, thanks for the considered response, on the basis of which I have restored the Peter Cook quote to the article, under your "Appraisal" subheading. I fully understand that it may be "tweaked" for style, or to fit in with future editions of the section, but I shall expect its essence to remain part of the article, as it was before. Regards. Nortonius (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Appraisal section should be in place later today, and will include a reference to the D & C item, suitably contextualised. I am quite familiar with the Derek and Clive corpus, which was big stuff when I was a student. How we laughed. Now, it seems to have all the wit of little boys farting in class. Still, each to his/her tastes, I've run out of analogies. Brianboulton (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's great, thank you very much! Interesting, what you say about having laughed at D & C as a student: I also laughed, the first time around. Then, some 20 years later, I found myself listening again, and re-appraised D & C: the second time around, what I found absorbing was not so much the content, as the interplay between Cook and Moore - the mental sword-play, the comic timing, the erudition, and, most definitely, the wit! It was well worth the re-listening; but, as you say, "each to his/her tastes"! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title

I have moved the article title to "Tom Driberg" (from "Tom Driberg, Baron Bradwell). This is the normal practice in Wikipedia for articles where the subject received a peerage late in life, having been known by their true names through their main years of achievement and noteworthiness. See, for example, Benjamin Britten, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Laurence Olivier, Harold Macmillan and many others. The references to Driberg's title in the text and infobox remain unchanged. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I can't find any reference to him being a Privy Counsellor so I've removed that. Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Monday 9 December 1941

Pearl Harbor was attacked on Sunday 7 December 1941; President Roosevelt's famous speech asking Congress for a declaration of war against Japan and beginning "Yesterday — December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States was wantonly and deliberately attacked ...", was on Monday 8 December 1941. The regular (non-special edition) morning newspapers that reported the Dec. 8 speech and declaration of war were dated Tuesday, December 9, 1941; for example a facsimile of The New York Times front page that I have before me. Now it's possible that Tom Driberg was in Washington on Tuesday the 9th but not Monday the 8th; it's also possible that the source cited (Tom Driberg) confused the days of the week (his report of Monday's events was no doubt published on the 9th). But the anomaly needs to be resolved somehow, because to anyone who knows anything about the attack on Pearl Harbor, one of the memorable elements (with a dramatic contrast, used in countless later portrayals, of sudden war with innocent weekend relaxation or worship) is that it happened on a Sunday (U.S. and Hawaiian time). The Sunday newspapers had already been printed and delivered, so Americans first got the startling news either by word of mouth or from radio reports while expecting to hear athletic, religious or musical programming. [The only afternoon paper that day, and thus the only U.S. newspaper to report Pearl Harbor on December 7th, was The Westerly Sun in Rhode Island, published by Seventh-Day Adventists who took Saturday for their Sabbath and treated Sunday as a weekday.] —— Shakescene (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right; the date of Roosevelt's "infamy" speech was clearly 8 December. I have corrected the text, and changed the source to Wheen, who gets it right. Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Another piece of self indulgent of crap

jeez I have read some booring articles on here, but this one takes the biscuit as the first choice for the main page. I mean just out of interest I went back to 2009. That short article then told me everything I needed to know. He was a labour MP who was a shameless homosexual who probably betrayed his country for some "rough trade". This article on the other hand is the work of an apologist. The old article hits the tone immediately whereas this one drowns out his scurrilous reputation with narrative that is both verbose and boorish. Very clever! Who ever thinks this is a good article needs their head examined?!!!

As noted above, someone said he was a well-known gay man who did not care that homosexuality was illegal. Churchill even said Driberg gave sodomy a bad name (whatever that meant!). The bottom line is this that this article far from accurate. Imagine the uproar if an article about Adolf Hitler was written in the same self-serving manner, there would be little room for any mention of anti-Semitism then!

From the intro down, there is little but dull narrative prose about he did this and he did that, yeah he did plenty of this and that with little care for the consequences, too! This article is piss poor with capitals. There should be tags that could be added to these articles warning all those college plagiarists that they would not be getting an a good grade if they copied this drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.90.201 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If I may: while I can't comment on the remarkably quick comparison with the article about Adolf Hitler, ;o) I'm sure that there are many experienced Wikipedia editors who would beg to differ with your comments about this article. This article is patently encyclopedic, so it is bound to include material which is considered encyclopedic. As a featured article it will have been subjected to quite rigorous examination, for example concerning bias, by which I mean your description of the article as "the work of an apologist." As well as looking back through older versions of the article, you are free to read only the opening section, or "lead", and skip the rest: in a way, it could be said that this is what the lead is for. You might also wish to make further constructive contributions to Wikipedia as you did here, to match the hard work that has gone into creating this article. Best wishes. Nortonius (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised by your comments,I came here because I wanted to say that I think this is actually one of the very best Wiki articles I have ever read. It gets to the heart of the man and shows that he was much loved by his friends and even fondly loathed by his enemies. A truly remarkable,unique and very individual character and this article does him great justice. Frglee (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. When I was told the article would be on the main page, I anticipated an explosive rant from someone – Driberg tends to affect people like that, even 36 years after his death. If all we have is the rubbish at the top of this thread, then I think we've got off lightly. Now I must get busy on my next piece of self-indulgent crap. Brianboulton (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"to get off later charges"

"to get off later charges" should be replaced with something NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Common law widow

I suggest that the reference to "Ena Mary Binfield, née Lyttelton, the common law widow of Joe Binfield" should be changed to "Ena Mary Binfield, née Lyttelton, the former mistress of Joe Binfield". There is no such thing as a common law widow.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I would avoid the somewhat loaded term "mistress" unless there is multiple WP:RS that uses that term for the relationship (googling I don't see them). Was Joe Binfield married - the term would certianly be wrong if he wasn't married to another. Rwendland (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514220452/http://www.puseyhouse.org.uk/house/history/ to http://www.puseyhouse.org.uk/house/history

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Gay sexual orientation

@Vodka lemon lime: Please explain why "gay sexual orientation" is better than "homosexuality", why "Oxford" (the city) is synonymous to the university in that city and most of all what on earth you mean by "given the retrograde social and political context of the times" and what exactly are the sources for that claim. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

The longstanding lead image, under a fair use rationale, was recently replaced by an image which purported to be "free". If that image is to be used it needs to be demonstrated that it is free in the US, not just in the UK. I have restored the original image until the US copyright status of the proposed replacement is established. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead image was again replaced by Thomas Drieburg.jpg, but I have again restored the former image pending clarification that the latter is free from copyright in the US. Since the IP is unwilling or unable to investigate, I will do so and report accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've received an informed opinion that the proposed replacement is free fro US copyright law, and can therefore be used here in place of the non-free image. Brianboulton (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead image caption

The main caption reads "Chairman of the Labour Party", as though this was some form of high dignified public office. It isn't and wasn't: the party chairmanship was awarded yearly, on the basis of Buggins' turn, to whoever had sat on the National Executive the longest. No honour whatever - about 90% of the holders were nonentities, and Driberg was unusual in that many people had actually heard of him. Of course, the pompous jackass tried to pretend to his foreign friends that it was an importsnt office, and some of the Soviets might have believed him... I'm not sure what if anything ought to be done to clarify the position, but it looks annoyingly misleading at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Tom Driberg.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Opposition to abuse of Jews in the Polish army

One of Driberg's main political activities in 1943-1945 was opposing the abuse of Jews in the Polish army in the UK. This led to hearings in parliament, inquiries, and was a factor in the dissolution of the Polish army in the west. This page should at least mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper honestus (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC) - (ArbCom banned user)

I concur. A brief statement to that effect would be fine, I think. The first two sentences above, suitably polished and referenced in the form in use in the article would suit the case, I think. Any other views? Tim riley talk 09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have concerns whether this minor incident is WP:UNDUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

More sources:

• "Polish Forces, Great Britain (Anti-Semitism)". Hansard. 06 April 1944, vol. 398, cols. 2010–2014.
• "Antisemitism in Polish Army: Members from all parties express their concern". The Manchester Guardian. 8 April 1944.
• Fleming, Michael (2014). Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 224–225. ISBN 978-1-1070-6279-5.
• Engel, David (2012) [1993]. Facing a Holocaust: The Polish Government-in-exile and the Jews, 1943–1945. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press. p. 113ff. ISBN 0-8078-6536-2.

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Aren't 1944 sources a tad old? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough to cite Hansard and the contemporary press, I 'd say, but let's see if anyone else has views. Tim riley talk 10:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradwell Lodge

Am in the process of working up an article on Bradwell Lodge. A, quite nice, 21st-century image of the lodge can be found there. We could replace the 1960s image currently here with that one. However, it may be felt that the current image is more suitable, particularly as it purports to show Driberg, although he’s close to unrecognisable! I’d be interested in others’ thoughts. KJP1 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Two related queries:

• Surely there is space for WSC’s other famous Driberg witticism - on seeing a picture of Ena, “buggers can’t be choosers”;
• Is Osbert Lancaster’s “Wedding Ode to Tom Driberg” available as a free source anywhere? KJP1 (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As one of several editors who keep an eye on some of the 100 articles taken to FA by Brian Boulton I quite often wade into discussions, confident I know what BB might have thought of a proposed change, but here I'm not confident − can't begin to guess. For my own part, I prefer the suggested coloured picture to the present black and white one, in which Driberg is, as you say, not conspicuously distinguishable, but I'd be happier knowing what other editors think.

As to your two supplementaries, a WP:RS for the first? And not a clue about the second (though pleased to see a link to an article BB suggested he and I should take to FAC, though he left it to me in the end, flagging a bit by then, alas). Tim riley talk 14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Afterthought: ungracious of me not to have added that your new article on the lodge is a pleasure to read. Tim riley talk 15:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You’re very kind. I also personally prefer the more recent image of the lodge, and think it gives a clearer view of what the building actually looks like. That said, the older image does have some nice detailing, although not of Driberg! Let’s see whether anyone else has a view. KJP1 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)