Talk:S. O. Davies

Davies's date of birth
Davies's "official" d.o.b., 9 November 1886, is widely regarded by published sources to be inaccurate, the assumption being that he was born several years before this. However, there is no certainty as to his actual year of birth. Research among internet genealogy sites has revealed evidence that he might have been born on 9 November 1879, but none of the reliable published sources refer to this date – the nearest they get is in saying that he may have been at least four years older than records suggest. Until a reliable sources researches, analyses and publishes the data relating to Davies's birth, we can go no further than the tentative statements in existing sources. Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Were MPs in 1934 not required by law to provide their date of birth? Is that information not in the public domain? I'm just suggesting that if his "official" d.o.b is good enough for the House of Commons, it's probably good enough for us. A footnote could easily be added to explain the uncertainty. At least we get his age at death in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the knowledge that his "official" year of birth, 1886, was false is too widely known for us to adopt it in the manner you suggest, and although it would give us an age at death in the infobox, it would be the wrong age. Best, I think, to have the uncertainty out in the open. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand that approach. But if we are relying on "a fact" that was "too widely known", one might expect to see the source(s) for this fact in the infobox? I see the support is there in the article text, relating to his birth. Maybe that's enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1891 census has Davies recorded as 9 years old which suggests that he was born in 1881. This appears to be a reliable source? Macs15 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfectly reliable. But if it's not published in a secondary source, how does show it in a reference and avoid the charge of WP:OR? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The information concerning the 1891 census is included and cited in footnote 1. I have added two citations to the infobox. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is as far as we can go based on the available evidence. Macs15 (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible birth registration
The Familysearch.org online register of birth records shows a Stephen Owen Davies being registered in Oct-Nov-Dec 1879. Source. That would seemingly confirm the Nov 9, 1879 DOB would it not?

Cite: "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2XFG-K8R : 1 October 2014), Stephen Owen Davies, 1879; from "England & Wales Births, 1837-2006," database, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : 2012); citing Birth Registration, Pontypridd, Glamorganshire, Wales, citing General Register Office, Southport, England.

Lilduff90 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * How did we get 9 November? I thought it was 6 November or 27 November. Nirva20 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Likely dates of birth? (November 27, 1881/1882/1883)
Per text: "Robert Griffiths records that, when registering at University College, Cardiff in 1908, Davies gave his date of birth as 27 November 1883"; "for the National Registration Act 1939, he gave his birth date as 27 November 1886, at 135 Kings Avenue, Wandsworth"; his Dictionary of Welsh Biography entry states that "[a]ccording to the 1891 census, he was nine years of age at that time which suggests 1881 or 1882 as his true birth year".

Thus, I suggest 27 November 1881/1882/1883 as the cited date of birth, although another comment on this thread re 1879 should, of course, be considered. Nirva20 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , if you are challenging the current text then please lay out your arguments clearly. Posting a chunk of raw wikitext is not helpful. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not challenging, just reformulating (sorting and collating). But thanks. Done. ✅ Nirva20 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have not analysed all of the issues, but we should rely on modern reliable secondary sources. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography says "probably (or officially) on 8 or 9 November 1886", and gives "1886?" in the title and summary. The ODNB (paywall) gives 1886 in the title, and in the article it says "probably on 9 November 1886 [....] there is some uncertainty over the exact date of his birth". We do not need to pick open the detailed discussions in the sources, we should assume that the authors' titles represent their considered opinions, and we should follow them. Pinging . Verbcatcher (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. But if Davies gave 27 November as his date of birth ... Nirva20 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever Davies said is a primary source which should only be used with caution, see WP:PRIMARY. He or his family may have been confused, or he might have misrepresented his date of birth for some reason. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree that, looking at the existing good sources, 1886 looks more likely. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123 -- It's extremely unlikely we'll ever know for sure. All we can do is add caveats. I don't think 1886 is particularly reliable in light of 1891 census, but ... Nirva20 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * '''I JUST REALIZED. TODAY IS ST. DAVID'S DAY, PATRON SAINT OF WALES. HAPPY HOLIDAY TO ALL. Nirva20 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus." Some adjustment to the (already sizable) footnote might be possible? But if we're not careful, we might end up with a dedicated article for his birthday. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There really is no need to change this. The sources (which we give details of ) don't know, and it's not up to us to pick one for no reason. We reflect the sources, uncertainty and all. - SchroCat (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nirva20 now blocked as a sock of a blocked user. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aren't we meant to strike out all of their comments here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the 'correct' course is supposed to be, but as long as it's somehow flagged up, that seems fine - although if anyone else wants to strike them or do whatever, I'll leave that up to them. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Crabbycritter still my fave. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Labour rebel
"No action followed and his popularity was unaffected" doesn't seem to follow from a secret intelligence file. I dropped "No action followed" and moved the rest to refer to losing the party whip, replacing the letter "justifying his position". Feel free to revert. zzz (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons image of John Street
Despite the geograph image title, the street shown is not John Street, it's the start of Park View Terrace at the junction with Cromer Street. No 39, where Davies was born, is the small stone terraced house, back along John Street towards Bronallt Terrace, at the junction with Margaret Street, almost opposite Bethesda Welsh Baptist Chapel. It has a "John Street" street name on the front. Admittedly these are all part of the B4275. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a picture of his birthplace so don't need to give the exact location. We don't need to give the date of a photograph unless the scene has significantly changed since it was taken. I propose "A street near Davies's birthplace in Abercwmboi". If a reader wants more information they should click on the image, so I have corrected the location in c:File:John Street, Abercwmboi.jpg, added coordinates, and requested its renaming to "Park View Terrace, Abercwmboi.jpg".


 * A better solution would be a picture of the birthplace. I think the house with the "John Street" sign is number 40. Number 39 is next door, painted grey. See here. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's it, the rendered and painted end of terrace? The house numbers seem to run in sequence on that side of the street and numbers 42 and 43 can be clearly seen a little further along. I suppose it's just possible that the numbers may have been changed since the 1880s, but that seems unlikely. If that is the house, then obviously much better to use an image of it. I guess the current picture gives an idea of the neighbourhood and the size of the houses, and it is a continuation of the same road (the B4275). Any modern photograph, however, is not really going to convey the feel of the locality in the 1880s, in any case. Images can't be captured directly from Google StreetView, can they? Is there any copyright issue? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We can't include an image derived from StreetView. We could put an external link, but I don't think it is merited. I posted the link in the hope that someone would take a new photo. We could also look for an old photo of the locality during Davies's childhood. You are right that the Cynon valley has changed dramatically since the 1880s, the valley was then booming and now there is now significant deprivation and unemployment. However the housing stock has probably improved: lots of housing was quickly built to low standards and only the better-built houses remain. What now appears to be the smallest house in a modest terrace may then have been better than most. A photo would illustrate that Davies came from a working-class background, but probably not from significant poverty. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. That would have been a reasonable home for a miner like Thomas Davies. Many miners would have been happy to live in what we would call a "modest house", especially if they could enjoy the splendours of such edifices as Bethesda, Abercwmboi directly from their front window. I wonder did the Davies family attend that chapel? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated biography of SO Davies
Dear all,

Just a note to let everyone who may be interested know that I have almost completed an updated and greatly extended biography of SO. It includes precise details of his birth, which I have got wrong in the past - alongside everyone else who has commented on the question! I have discovered much more about his family background, early life, his activities during the First World War and subsequently in the SWMF and MFGB. One or two previous errors of fact of mine or repeated by me - including some which feature in the Wiki entry - are corrected. I have also quoted extensively from Special Branch records. There is more about his role in the League Against Imperialism and his extensive links with Communists and trade unionists in Germany before and after WW2. After much searching, I have also found a quote from SO a couple of years after the events about his view of the Hungary crisis in 1956 (but nothing about Czechoslovakia in 1968). The claim on one history website that I avoided or covered up his views on these issues in the first biography was baseless then - and will be shown to be so in the new one.

Looking back on all the new material, it is clear to me that SO was a far more prominent figure in the MFGB (especially 1924-33) and as a Labour MP in the 1940s and 1950s than I had first thought (and would have liked him to have been!). He was often the headline speaker at meetings across Britain and in Ireland, and also had a bigger international reputation than I realised. Perhaps my past under-estimation - and that of others? - was the result of only seeing him from a modern-day vantage point, as an elderly left-wing rebel who was never more than a controversial but nonetheless highly marginal figure.

Anyone who would like to contact me can do so by email at robdavid11@aol.com. Incidentally, in the light of some of the Wiki discussion, I should say that I have never regarded being a member of the Communist Party as licence to falsify, mislead or disregard facts. No doubt my ideological outlook affects how I see and judge things - but in my experience that is just as true for any historian who has liberal, conservative, social-democratic or far left views/ values/ perspectives or any eclectic mix of those or others.

Best wishes, Robert Griffiths2A02:C7F:1C39:8F00:60F0:6633:7D1F:3E04 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)