Talk:Max Mosley/Archive 2

Better lock this article. There's a shitstorm coming of nazi orgy proportions.

http://www.bild.de/BILD/sport/motorsport/2008/03/30/max-mosley/feiert-nazi-sex-party,geo=4137248 .html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.71.55 (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that a reason to lock the article? I have just added a line about the scandel, I hope my change was acceptable...81.156.161.38 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not atucally, as now it appears to be real rather than a hoax (i was linked to it from 4chan :P) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.71.55 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the "Nazi sex orgy" section; tabloids are not reliable sources, per this statement in reliable sources "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel that this information should be removed at all. The News of the World may not be a particularly classy product, but it's one of the UK's highest circulating titles and it's part of the Murdoch stable that puts out the Times and the Sun. Whatever my personal opinion of Rupert Murdoch, it's hardly sensible to leave out all of his titles (including Fox News and the Wall Street (Journal) when looking for high quality sources! There will eventually have to be information about the Nazi scandal on Mosley's wiki biography, it may as well get up there today when there are people looking for it.81.156.161.38 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if other articles pick up on it. If there's a hit of truth, other people will start questioning Mosley about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article to stop the edit war. Please try to reach consensus instead of reverting each other. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that -- we need to conform to WP:BLP here. If a mainstream media outlet picks up the story, we can cover it. For those new to this page, and new to the project, or directed here from another website, it's a long-standing Wikipedia policy to prohibit using tabloid material in biographies of living people. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been picked up by a mainstream media out let - News of the World. How much more mainstream can coverage get than the front page of a newspaper which sells 3.2 million copies in Mosley's home nation?81.156.161.38 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Circulation != reliability. Antandrus (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with that statement, I mentioned the circulation in response to your comment that "If a mainstream media outlet picks up the story, we can cover it." The NotW is a mainstream media outlet.81.156.161.38 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"it's a long-standing Wikipedia policy to prohibit using tabloid material in biographies of living people." Can you link to the specific bit of policy that says that? --87.112.38.211 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP. Not the exact words, but the spirit of it. BLP states several times that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, for example: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." -- and it follows directly from "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" that we do not repeat claims made only in tabloids. Antandrus (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably notable, http://www.welt.de/sport/article1860738/Der_Brief_des_Fia-Praesidenten_im_Wortlaut.html also Bernie's advice to ..."do what he believes, in his heart of hearts, is the right thing". http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=42175 Tommy turrell (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve been contributing to this article for about seven months now, and currently I have nominated it for featured article status. Many people have made edits to this article that they have considered for a long time with much debate and research. I know that most people that edit a wikipedia article do so because they want to make it a better article that represents the facts. In this case the article has been a fair but ‘warts and all’ portrayal of Max Mosley, up to now I think that has helped stop the edit warring that used to occur on his entry and has enabled it to reach good article status. As a long term contributor I can’t help but feel proud of what has been achieved which I know is probably not very wikipedian of me! So with those things in mind, could I ask everyone to think very carefully before getting into an edit war on this story, it seems to me that one way or other there is a lot more information to materialize which will help add clarity to the situation. It would be nice if any further edits are in keeping with the good work that has been done up to now and to those of you that come here just to vandalize I ask that you consider the hours of other people time that has gone in to this article. BTW, I find it interesting to note that some of the journalists have simply cut and paste details on Mosley back ground from this very article! Didn't there editors tell them to never trust wikipedia! Tommy turrell (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment but I'll just say you should read WP:BEANS and think about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ricky is unfortunately probably correct (BTW guys, never, ever - and this is important - send me big bundles of cash). Re the journalists, if they're cutting and pasting, they're infringing the GFDL that Wikipedia is licensed under. Unless they're releasing their own articles under the GFDL, which I doubt. 4u1e (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

These damn beans! Point taken. Ref journalists http://www.gambling911.com/Formula-One-Motor-Racing-Chief-Max-Mosley-Nazi-Orgy-Hookers-033008.html and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article3652500.ece seem to be quite close to wiki content. Tommy turrell (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for laughs, I've contacted the Times and gambling911.com about their copright violation. It'll be interesting to see what happens. 4u1e (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it be copyright violation if Wikipedia content isn't copyrighted? Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

not copyrighted but i think (and I am prob wrong!) that any material that is copied from Wikipedia and released elsewhere has to be released under the same licence, i.e. giving someone else the right to copy it. It also needs to state where it originated from. Anyone else help with this?Tommy turrell (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is copyrighted, just under terms which allow free use of its content. But under certain conditions, one of which is acknowledging the source, and another of which is that the derivative work should also be licensed under the GFDL. Or at least that's my understanding. 4u1e (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/oswalds-legacy-fast-cars-and-fascism-803554.html (but not that much) this one's even funnier because they have also pinched text from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article3649197.ece because (thanks 193.35.129.161) they also have promoted Stirling Moss to a former world champ! I only point this out because I am troubled by it, it seems there is a danger of wikipedia creating truth, which we then link back to as a reference at a later date. It’s a shame that these broadsheets don’t declare there references. p.s. 4u1e if you look carefully in the independent article you may find some of your own hand work, hint look for the square brackets! ;-) Tommy turrell (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey - I'm a published author! Well, a published inserter of editorial clarification in square brackets. Cool. Yes, circular references are a distinct possibility, but other than trying to pick the websites up on it there's not much to be done. The other problem is the large number of Wikipedia mirrors. I've even seen a Wikipedia article (Carlos Reutemann) deleted because it was thought to be a copy of an article on a site that had in fact copied all its articles from Wikipedia. I managed to get that one reversed. Similarities between news articles can also be down to shared use of the same press release, it's not always a case of copying from each other. 4u1e (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Might as well deal with these here. All stuff about quality of writing, rather than the content as such.

"Lady Diana was also imprisoned..."

Is within a gigantic organisation like Wikipedia really nobody who says "Ouch" here? Thousands of Brits must have read it. I am German and I did.

Diana Mosley was the wife of a baronet (Sir Oswald Mosley) and was, as such, referred to as "Lady Mosley". "Lady Diana" or "Lady Diana Mosley" would be the proper way to refer to the daughter of a peer above the rank of a viscount.

Because Diana Mosley was the daughter of a baron as well as the wife of a baronet, her correct title would be "The Honourable Lady Mosley".

Even if we think that things like that ought to be confined to the realms of history or oblivion, this is an encyclopedia and ought to be treated with some respect for correctness.

Verity Truth (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the correct title would be Lady Mosley. Readro (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What can I say: not a topic I know much about. Thanks for the info - having it correct is of course important - and thanks Readro for making the change. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I know it was because one of the motorsport magazines got rapped on the knuckles for calling Sir Frank Williams' wife Lady Virginia instead of Lady Williams. Not a topic I know a lot about either! Readro (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, Sir Frank and Sir Oswald don't actually hold the same rank, if I understand correctly, Sir Oswald was a baronet, while Sir Frank is a Commander of the British Empire. Perhaps I should run this by a relevant wikiproject - a recent editor has objected to the use of 'Lady' as well. (That's no lady, that's my mother...) 4u1e (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused now. I thought it was right until you wrote that and now I'm doubting myself! Best to ask someone who knows for certain. There must be a relevant WP around here. Readro (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Orders. Adrian M. H. 12:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Had a go at this, sorry if i've miss understood anything that has been said. I've changed Sir Oswald to Sir Oswald Mosley as I don't think anyone can object to his full title. I have refered to 'Diana, Lady Mosley' in Max's infobox as I have taken that from her own wiki article and it would seem to be correct going by what else is written here. The only question that remains for me is what to call Diana before she was married to Sir Oswald Mosley. I am assuming that it should be "Diana Freeman-Mitford" which is appaernlty her full name (not Diana Mitford). However does her Father's title need incorprating into her maiden name and does her former marrage have any baring?Tommy turrell (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, not keen on having 'Sir Oswald Mosley' at every occurence - did anyone complain about that one? I'd be inclined to refer to Diana as 'Diana Mitford' at first appearance, as 'Mitford' after that if needed, and then as 'Lady Mosley' after her marriage to Sir Oswald. I've asked at WikiProject Orders (Thanks Adrian). 4u1e (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

no problem, was trying to preempt any objection, after further reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir#Formal_styling apparently 'Sir Oswald' would be fine as long as we don't use 'Sir Mosley'. So I will change back. Tommy turrell (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I know a lot about this. Basically, in the British Peerage, no woman should ever be called Lady (First Name) unless she is the daughter of an Earl, Marquess or Duke. An exception is the great-grandaughters of monarchs in the male line - they have the title of Lady, even though their father's are Princes - e.g. Lady Gabriella Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor. Diana had the title of The Hon. before marrying a Baronet, afterwards she should be styled as Lady Mosley, or Diana, Lady Mosley. NEVER LADY DIANA! Also I've seen her sister Unity described as Lady Unity. Wrong! They do not have this rank! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.81.173 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tommy turrell is changing the word "piss" to "p***" claiming that this is not censorship, but because the censored version of the word has been used in The Times. However, Ecclestone didn't say "p***", he used the word "piss", regardless of the way in which The Times reported this word. If The Times had accidentally incorporated a typo into the quote, that typo wouldn't become part of what Ecclestone had said, so if they choose to censor a word and Wikipedia's policy is NOT to censor that word, we shouldn't be censoring that word just because it's censored in the source unless it's unclear or ambiguous as to what the actual word used was. It's neither unclear nor ambiguous in this instance, so the word "piss" should be used here. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bingobangobongoboo, I’m sure that is a compromise that we can both feel happy with, I am not making any claims about censorship my point is that the edit that you made is not supported by the reference, how do you know that he meant to say piss and not poop!? I am being pandatic but this is a sensitive issue. I have no problem with you finding a reliable reference that supports your claim and changing it back. I’m not going to do it myself because personally I don’t think saying piss in the text is more important than verifiability and i can't see a reliable reference that supports your claim.Tommy turrell (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to it saying 'piss' and if we can find it quoted as such, then let's change it, but Tommy's right - you have to report the source as it is, not as you believe it should be (no matter how likely it is that you are right). That would certainly include grammatical infelicities. It's not uncommon to see newspapers correct such things in quotes of people speaking but they usually make the editorial intervention obvious using square brackets. Less so for genuine typos, but could still be the case. 4u1e (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, truly, hand on the heart, do you really think it could possibly be "poop" or anything else?

• guardian.co.uk
• theaustralian.news.com.au
• autosport.com/news
• autocar.co.uk
• smh.com.au Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool good find and I thought I was the master of finding ref's! I have added your autosport refrance to the article it's self so that that can be no doubt. Tommy turrell (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But as explained above, that's not the point. See WP:V. Anyhow - it's fine as now referenced by Tommy. 4u1e (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, def. a good find. I only added the censored version because The Times ref was all I had to go on. Just for future reference Bingobangobongoboo, you could simply have changed the word in question from the censored version to the actual version and added one of the refs and saved yourself and everybody else a lot of time on this page. Mark83 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

--Aleksander21 (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)There must be some caution as to the allegations. The two girls, seen on the tabloid's video, are NOT wearing (nazi) camp uniforms, as the video claims! These were vertical ones, blue in color, and rather narrow. Whereas the girls wear large horizontally striped uniforms, seen in American or other prisons...

I have no idea if you're correct or not, however that's not the point. It's original research to make such a claim without a verifiable reference. Such a referenced refutement of at least that element of the allegations would by a good addition.

Even if that is the case, the use of German (not an issue by itself but when the other factors are included - however Mosley's answer is some of the prostitutes were German speakers), and also the (going by several references) disgusting re-enactment of the inspection of concentration camp inmates for lice, are cases to answer. Mark83 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

--Aleksander21 (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Yes, you are right, but a reference is easely to be found, namely on the Wikipedia itself! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_uniform

We do not permit circular referencing. And comments are signed after the text. Adrian M. H. 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Adrian M. H.'s words are clear to me, but just to be 100% clear: Wikipedia can't reference itself. Mark83 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

*****OK, I didn't know. Here is another reference for a recent American prison inmate. http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-013006-al-judge_jerry.551ad510.html You could also find images on Google, searching for the terms "striped uniform". The nazi camp prisoners' uniform stripes are pictured blue and vertical... --Aleksander21 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

***** As to the search for lice in prisons, included on the genital sphere, it may be a common practice even now. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=docket&no=0010122man or this one: http://www.aele.org/law/JB2001MAY.html --Aleksander21 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not looking for a reference for the direction of the stripes on the uniforms, we're looking for a reference that this means that the scenario was not a Nazi prison camp. Your judgment or my judgment that inaccurate uniforms mean that this is the case is not enough. For example consider that the (ahem) service that Mosley was employing is not likely to have precise replicas of all items of clothing needed for all the (ahem) scenarios that are are called on to enact. The intent of any scenario is ultimately what the (ahem) customer wants it to be, and isn't affected by minor details of the props used. Ahem. :)

Someone has made a claim, which we have reported accurately. Mosley has denied elements of it, which we have also reported. Until a conclusion of some kind is reached, that's probably about as far as we go - as an encyclopedia, not a blog or a news service. 4u1e (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

4u1e, in fact, we should be looking for a reference that the scenario really WAS a Nazi prison camp, a reference other than the tabloid's one, where highly suggestive but rather arbitrary inscriptions were added on the video track.--Aleksander21 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to do a lot more policy/guideline reading yet. In its function as a tertiary source, WP reports what has been published elsewhere and it is not our function to check the veracity of those claims, but merely to reiterate them in a neutral and non-synthesised manner. If source x makes claim y, we must report that source x has made claim y and we do not comment on that claim, judge it, or disregard it because it suits us. Adrian M. H. 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What Adrian said. 4u1e (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I rather agree with you on the whole, on the condition that one tries to find claims at odds with the prevailing one or with the mediatically amplified one. According to this, I have added to the article a view coming from the Brazilian Automobile Federation. --Aleksander21 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably reasonable - but be aware of WP:UNDUE (i.e. if only a single voice in the wilderness supports a point of view, reporting it is probably according it undue weight). Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone added something to this section which i was going to remove because it wasn't ref'd however the whole section doesn't appear to have any ref's anymore and I am sure it used to. So I have left it in for now. Have added fact markers for now and will look later.Tommy turrell (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The cited main article 2007 Formula One espionage controversy has plenty of references for all the points - the referenced Martin Brundle article covers several of them anyway. The only sentence I'd be doubtful about is the "Many British Formula One commentators..." one. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, that's a bit weaselly (and it's my fault, I re-wrote it much shorter after someone complained about the length of the previous version). From memory, both Alan Henry and Joe Saward have made comments in print about not wanting to comment further on the 2007 issues because they need their press passes for this season. And of course Brundle was more explicit about it. (which is referenced). I'll reference or remove. 4u1e (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, by the way, this article is now generating plenty of peer review! :D 4u1e (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've either ref'd or removed. Better? 4u1e (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All goodTommy turrell (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, currently there is a statement "Sportspro magazine, edited by Tom Rubython, has also accused him of receiving gifts from Bernie Ecclestone, and giving away the FIA's commercial rights under disadvantageous terms." in the article. The claim, supported by a ref, is written by someone who seems very knowledgeable about formula one, however it does seem to be just someone’s personal opinion rather than just straight facts. Personally I've never heard of Sportspro magazine but naturally that could just be my ignorance! However there website does look a little unprofessional and they do seem to have a penchant for getting sued! I would prefer to see a stronger reference for such a bold claim, any thoughts?Tommy turrell (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see a stronger source for it. Another reason for concern is that Sportspro is edited by Tom Rubython and seems to be a reincarnation of BusinessF1 Magazine. (see here). It has to be said that both editor and magazine had an unfortunate record of publishing stories about leading FIA figures, and losing the subsequent libel cases (See the BusinessF1 article for details). I don't know whether this is reasonable grounds for discounting a source at Wikipedia, though. Advice welcome! 4u1e (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

on closer inspection the ref doesn't use the words gift or gifts. Additionally it 'seems' to accuse Mosley of being Gay, something that would seem doubtful ;-) on those grounds I think this is a very unreliable ref so I took the whole statment out. Tommy turrell (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Overnight a mention of Sir Oswald and Diana Mitford's (bizarre) wedding at Goebbel's house with Hitler as witness/guest has been added. Although it's a fascinating detail, the wedding has nothing to do with Max, who was born a few years later, and there is a huge amount of detail that could be added about Sir Oswald and Diana, both of whom have extensive articles of their own. Obviously we can't add all of it, so why are we adding this tidbit? Neither Sir Oswald nor Diana were technically Nazis (they were fascists) and (current events aside) there has never been any suggestion that Max was involved in Nazi (as opposed to fascist) activity. The two aren't completely synonymous. On the other hand, the BUF did receive funds from Nazi Germany and Diana was a friend of Hitler.

I'm inclined to think the wedding is irrelevant. What would perhaps be more meaningful is a mention of the atmosphere that Max grew up in after the way: was Diana (the more likely culprit on this occasion) still pro-Hitler after the war? This would fit with the existing mentions of the family visiting, for example, Franco after the war.

I'll leave it for the minute. Any views on this? 4u1e (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit I've changed the heading of this section, because it's not what I meant to say. His parents Nazi connections are relevant, but is his parents' Nazi wedding relevant? 4u1e (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

Given Mosley *chose* not to enter politics due to parents political views, or more accurately, due to the fact he'd be unelectable as a consequence, it's entirely appropriate. Factor in some of the information, given it's a clear relevancy to Mosley's career - choosing motor sports where noone cared about his family name - link to the main pages for his parents for further reading. Give a flavour, give link for more details. Minkythecat (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, in a way I'd prefer to mention Nazi funding of the BUF at that point, as having more real relevance, but the wedding does flow quite nicely at that point, while mentioning the funding would be a noticeable jump in the theme! I'm really only reluctant because it's a side-issue, a bit of a freak-show even: Sir Oswald's fascist and rascist activities are more relevant. 4u1e (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the wedding of his parents needs to go into Max's article but I am not massively apposed to it, whilst i do believe it is notable, it is already covered in both the Oswald Mosley and Diana Mitford articles, both which are linked too numerous times from Max's article. If it does go in then we are opening a can of worms, it's difficult to see where to draw the line. However I think it would be useful if the Diana Mitford and Oswald Mosley articles where expanded greatly.

Here is some other information that might be of interest but also blurs the lines:

• Diana Freeman-Mitford was a cousin of Sir Winston Churchill
• She still had a photograph of hitler in an eagle-topped frame, that he presented to her at her wedding to Mosley, when she died
• For six years post war she edited the far-right magazine The European
• Diana in 1959; "Immigration has been a tragedy," ... , "any number should have been allowed in to go to the universities and learn to be doctors and one thing and :: another - but not to settle".
• On Hitler; "But I didn't love Hitler any more than I did Winston. I can't regret it, it was so interesting"
• She chose Wagner's Ride of the Valkyrie as one of her Desert Island Discs (whatever you think - you've got to respect the balls! - it was a favourite of hitlers)
• On Jews, "maybe they could have gone somewhere like Uganda - very empty and lovely climate"
• She aborted (illigally) her first child with Oswald Mosley at a time when he was still married his first wife.
• On hitlers involment in the Holocaust, "The man I knew could not have done that"
• Diana in 2000; "until I say Hitler was ghastly. Well, what would be the point of that?" "I was fond of him. Very, very fond."
• In her MI5 records; "[Diana] Is said to be far cleverer and more dangerous than her husband and will stick at nothing to achieve her ambitions. She is wildly ambitious."

I know a little about Oswald Mosley too, but Diana was far more interesting and dangerous (according to MI5)! Tommy turrell (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who had added that mention; it came up in the context of a news article on that little Nazi-themed-orgy episode (written by John F. Burns in the New York Times, so certainly writing to hold in high regard--or so I've heard), where it seemed like a central, important, or at least significant factor in that aspect of his (parents') background. Here, I mostly thought it seemed like an interesting fact that I would have like to read (or at least have been interested in reading) in this article, so I have no strong opinion on its inclusion. Wikimancer (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his parents' views are relevant, but not because that necessarily means that he shares them (a rather clunking connection, and hardly inevitable: his half-brother Nicolas Mosley disagreed violently with Sir Oswald's fascist views). I think it's relevant because it illustrates the atmosphere he grew up in - in a household where such views were presumably the norm, and with parents who were extremely unpopular with the public at large. The wedding's probably not the best illustration of that point, though - if I can think of a better way of illustrating it, I'll do so, if not, I'll leave as is. 4u1e (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if Wikpedia should interest itself in someone's parenthood as a source of his or her would-be views or attitudes. Shouldn't it rather follow the example of Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary which describes a personality like J. Robert Oppenheimer (director of Manhattan project, to work up a nuclear bomb during World War II) as an AMERICAN physicist? (give only an official and public status of a person or the personal one, the origins?)...--Aleksander21 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - parenthood, no (other than the bare essentials of who they were). Upbringing and influences, yes (provided such can be referenced!). That's why I don't really feel the wedding is relevant. 4u1e (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For the text I removed...

-PASTE Three days later, Paulo Eneas Scaglione claimed he was misundertood and that he thinks the circunstances don't allow Max Mosley to continue as president of the FIA ^[1] END-

May we have multiple sources for this?

Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

agreed, currently at odds with reports on bbc and autosport Tommy turrell (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

other sources:

http://www2.uol.com.br/teojose/noticias/ult794u52150.shl

http://www.portalmaratimba.com/noticias/news.php?codnot=231300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rps (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone translate? The stories do seem to say something like that, but I don't know if we should be running ahead of the English language press on this. 4u1e (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You can get translations using babelfish or google. It is very unlikely that the "English language press" will bother to print this. Even the Portuguese press didn't pay attention to it (as usual, the original sensational quote is given more exposure than the subsequent denial/backpedaling) Rps (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but babelfish translations are appallingly bad (unsurprisingly, translation is not easy to do automatically) and I wouldn't trust one as a source. 4u1e (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am just tired of these excuses.... Rps (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Online translators are notoriously bad; using one here makes any linked sources unreadable for the English language wikipedia, thus useless sources. Link them in the portugese version, suer - but seriously, what is the point of using them here? If quality, readable valid English language sources become available, then use them rather than whining about "excuses". Minkythecat (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, here's the babelfish translation of the final line of one of the links you want inserted.

"Dumb CBA of idea and not apóia Mosley. Pablo Scaglione prefers not to take left in controversy and says that in case that will be decided in IT WEAVES."

Gosh. Useful. Minkythecat (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. 4u1e (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Mosley has been married to his wife Jean since 1960 with whom he has 2 sons. I wonder how his long term wife feels about the fact that Max had an alledged Nazi affair behind her back. Does anyone know if the marriage between Jean and Max has officially gone sour do to Max's alledged actions?

99.238.157.247 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Max said that his wife was "not best pleased" and his son's were "embarrassed" he also said that he'd step down in 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7357051.stm

Jean Mosley (France) lives separately from Max Mosley (Monaco, London) so I think it is accepted that they lead separate lives.

The other notable event not covered in the article is that http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=42342 Jean Todt (Former boss of Ferrari) has come out in support of Mosley. Which in my opinion will probably lead to a whole new can of worms in the media about weather Todt is suitable as a replacement for Mosley and Mosley's past decisions regarding Ferrari.Tommy turrell (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Joe Saward at Grandprix.com has already brought it up. Mind you, Grandprix.com seem to have decided to go 'anti' Mosley, where most other publications are remaining more neutral. 4u1e (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just found an IMDb page for Mosley - could it go in the external links section, or is it too trivial?-- Diniz(talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDb?! But why? Anyhow, it's my understanding that IMDb is considered a bit iffy as a source even for films (isn't it user edited?), and so would not really be a reliable source for us here. There are a couple of tidbits there that we don't have on this page, but probably not enough to satisfy as an external link. The snowboarding is apparently true - well, it's listed on his who's who page, although I've been told those aren't really terribly reliable either! 4u1e (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is the funniest response I've seen so far. Any chance it could be sneaked into the article? ;)-- Diniz(talk) 10:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a cultural difference if, as I grew up with a latin culture, I can't understand why there's so much rage against Mosley? I mean that it doesn't matter if everyone knows about his private life since he surely didn't want to show it to the Royal Family of the Gulf. Everyone has the right to do so or whatever s/he wants of his own life, even as a President of the FIA. What's the problem with partying? :-) 82.240.207.81 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution is effectively illegal in the UK, and the Nazi connotations are unpleasant to pretty much anyone, if true. Probably fewer, but still a large number, would also find the S&M stuff unpleasant. If you think about it, I think you will agree that we do not have the "the right to do so or whatever s/he wants of his own life". It won't take you very long to think of some behaviours that you would find unacceptable in someone else, even if kept private. 4u1e (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't watch the videos so it doesn't help - I forgot that there were prostitutes in the story, and I wasn't even aware that prostitution is illegal in the UK... The nazi connotations are weird, but as long as it has no impact on the way Mosley rules the FIA... is it more than a game - i mean, serious - and has he ever told anything that can label him as a Nazi? Also, the fact that "a large number" of people wouldn't like the fact that he practises SM doesn't matter much since everyone agrees that noone ever caught him saying that he'd reserve a special treatment for the next championship winner. I know that the level of my question is all but encylopedic, but it talks about the content of this article which is all but neutral. It looks like it is all made up to make people hate him the most. Parents' name in the infobox, a huge amount of talk about parents and the video... 82.240.207.81 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as his job goes, in practical terms it boils down to the fact that he's finding it very hard to carry on in his role now. It may be completely unfair on him, but most of those he is supposed to be doing business with seem not to want to be seen with him. As for the question of whether we include this here or not: of course we do. The story has had significant media coverage and one way or another has finished his time as FIA president (he wasn't nearly so definite about standing down at the end of his term before this story broke). I agree that the amount of coverage we currently have is too much, but people keep adding stuff it's hard to know how to edit it down until we get to the end of the story. Sometime after the EGM I would expect to be able to edit the whole episode down to 3-4 paragraphs, as opposed to the 8 we have now.

Regarding his parents, I find it hard to see what your concern is. There is only one paragraph which is solely about his parents. That hardly seems excessive, and when someone has notable parents, for good or ill, I would expect to see it mentioned in an article on them. You will also be hard pressed to find a biography of Mosley that does not mention his parents, why would we be any different? His parents are mentioned again after the first para, of course. The coverage in the 'Family and early life' is intended to explain the environment in which Mosley grew up. His parents were hated by many British people, and Diana Mosley later wrote that Max and Alexander's early upbringing must have "damaged" them. As for the section on 'Politics', it is a matter of record that Mosley from his teens to his early twenties had a significant involvement with his father's Union Movement, which although not formally a fascist party, had many of the same members and trappings as the BUF. It's not surprising that he was involved, quite apart from normal father-son relations, Oswald Mosley had a rather overwhelming personality, but Max's older brothers Nicholas and Alexander turned away from their father in this respect rather earlier. I don't think we can argue that Max's parents did not have a significant impact on his early life. They are not mentioned again after the 6th of 48 paragraphs, which hardly seems excessive. (The exception to that is a quote from Oswald about March Engineering's chances of success, which could have come from anyone, but is rather appropriate, given March's enduring financial problems!) Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When the anti-penultimate commentator mentions "unacceptable" behaviour, there is some subjectivity here. For example:homosexual acts were illegal in the U.K. until the 1960s, and that law was considered acceptable to many. Now it is not: what adults do in private is their business. Even S&M is probably legal in the U.K., and should not be worried about if it is in private and does not involve anyone who isn't interested in the activity. The Nazi part is a bit weird, but I remember a young member of the royal family being criticized for dressing in Nazi regalia, and it's now forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I forget the exact words, but Nigel Roebuck's editorial in this months Motor Sport magazine contained words to the effect that no-one in the sport really cares about the S&M bit, that's private and his own lookout, but they would have cared about the Nazi allegations, had they proved to be true. 4u1e (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone bold enough to put some of the details from the court case into the article? A few items seem to have been cleared up, re uniforms one of which was apparently a Luftwaffe uniform, German being spoken to sound harsher the mention of the Aryan begin recorded and payments to the women. Mr Justice Eady seems to have a long history of dealing with these sorts of cases, which may also be of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect details may wait for a verdict. Cover the event once it is over. Narson (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tommy (and Narson). I agree with Narson. We also need to remember that this section will eventually need to be considerably shorter than it is now. It's unbalanced with the rest of the article. 4u1e (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok cool, Yes totally agree that this section needs some brutal editing to cut it down to be around the same size as the 2007 season section. There is far too much he said, she said at the moment and I am not a big fan of the time line.

However having said that, my understanding is that if (when!) Max (Mike!) Mosley wins the case then it will be setting a legal precedent which will have far reaching implication on law in the England regarding privacy. I personally think that this will be worthy of its own separate article, probably within the scope of WikiProject Law. We could then have a ‘see also’ above the section in the Max Mosley Article. If it was a separate article can I suggest Mosley v News of the World as a title? Also once a verdict has been reached we need to rename the section in the Max Mosley article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 08:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really a precedent as I understand it, there has always been a need for public interest to justify privacy invasions. This one just has caught the headlines. The 'groundbreaking' part is that he is demanding punitive damages, which he won't, IMO, be awarded so it shouldn't be a huge thing. British law does not really do punitive damages, only actual. Narson (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Law is not my strong point (being a cyclist!) I was going by http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/max-mosleys-case-is-the-frontline-in-a-legal-battle-for-freedom-of-expression-861095.html and http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=43320. Have a google of Mr Justice Eady, he ruled in favour of Jordan, Ronaldo, Galloway etc, etc there seems to be some intresting info on him at http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=127263&d=415&h=417&f=416. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 09:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The key thing will be what the law reviews say. You'll find with the papers everything is ground breaking. 'Yet annother court case about slightly kinky sex and newspapers' doesn't sell as a headline :) It is why I think we need to wait for the case to end, then we will get some nice summations we can reference from the press and we will start to see any legal repurcussions. Narson (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If he gets punitive damages, as opposed to compensatory ones, that may be unusual enough to demand mention. Again though, I know very little about law. 4u1e (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've delisted this article as GA. Specifically, the Nazi orgy section taking approximately half the page up is unacceptable - what is he more famous for? Formula One, or the orgy? I think it would be impossible to fix these objections in the timeframe alloted by GAR, so I'm skipping the process because it would, most likely, see reason to delist. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this why we have GAR? So other people can put an input in and a consensus can be developed? Unilateral de-listing of GA's seems counter to wikiprinciples, at least to me. Not that I'd get into a fight over it. Narson (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum, it doesn't take up half the page, that is a silly exageration. It is too long and I don't see how it couldn't be condensed during a GAR process, hell, the entire case would likely be resolved during the course of the GAR (Summations are on...Monday?). Narson (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Being objective rather than subjective, the 'orgy' bit takes up slightly less than one sixth of the article 1093 words out of 6461 for the text, rather than a half. That is much too long, but nothing like what is suggested. And just at the moment, yes he his far better known for the orgy allegations than he is for his role in charge of the FIA. In an emergency it would take be about half an hour of solid work to condense the section to something rather shorter (that's how long it took to do the first draft in my sandbox, although I still need to add the refs, which is why I haven't transferred it here. If I had been asked, I could have transferred it here easily.

I'm listing this at GAR for review by others; it seems to me like a rather high-handed decision, that could easily have been dealt with by discussion here. 4u1e (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the GAR and the request at WP:GAN, I am relisting this as a GA. It was a long read, but an excellent article overall. The Nazi allegations section is much, much improved, and I could find no obvious areas of concern. Good work! Resolute 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a review. Geometry guy 23:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A very minor point, but I notice that there is a small debate over the use of the word contrived in the sentence “March is a contrived acronym based on the initials of the founders”. I just wanted to make a few notes on the subject. Contrived in this context is not meant to be negative in anyway, it is used to show effects of planning or manipulation (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contrived). I wanted to show that the founders intended the team to be called March (pronounced like the month) rather than M.A.R.C.H this differs from [British American Racing] which was referred to a B.A.R rather that Bar (as in some where you get a drink). The founders of March were aware that the arrangement of the letters created a word rather than C.H.M.A.R for example which is what makes it a contrived acronym. Just so everyone knows, I originally added the phrase myself and made a revert last night with being signed in. What does anyone else think?Tommy turrell (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it can most reasonably be called a 'contrived acronym', although according to the (unreferenced) Wikipedia article Acronym, that term has a narrower meaning. I think it is clear that March is March and not M.A.R.C.H. from the way it is written, so I wouldn't worry about that. BAR was written that way (strictly I suppose it should have been B.A.R.), and not Bar. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Whomever fiddled with the articlehistory left too many errors for me to sort out. Please read the instructions at Template:Articlehistory, then rebuild the ah to correctly reflect whatever was done here wrt GA, and when finished, please scroll to the bottom of the page to see if you've left the red articlehistory error category lit up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't a suitable promotion. It should be relisted at GAN IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know or care what's suitable, but what was entered in articlehistory resulted in errors, so whomever is going to rebuild the history needs to read the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Looking at the reassessment, it says sent back to GAN. Nothing on the {{ArticleHistory}} under the GAR header covers that I don't think. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is full of errors. I mean, it wasn't de-listed at GAR, it was delisted by one person acting on their lonesome. The GAR then seemed to agree the de-listing was wrong and sent it to GAN and then last I saw it was re-listed? Narson (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. I'm curious, D.M.N., how my relisting of this article was inappropriate. 1. It was listed at WP:GAN, 2. I reviewed it, and agreed with the consensus on the GAR page for this that it was once again a GA. 3. I relisted it. Perhaps you should have asked me rather than making ridiculous assumptions? Resolute 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I see it:

• 12 July 2008 - Delisted as GA
• 24 July 2008 - Relisted at GAN following GAR
• 15 August 2008 - Promoted back as GA

D.M.N. (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to be rebuild, but ALL of this is made HARDER when GA reviewers list and delist GA without using edit summaries; Dr pda's articlehistory script shows nothing because edit summaries weren't used, meaning someone now has to do it all manually with no help from the automated tools that are available to help with this task, if editors will Just Use Edit Summaries. I'll come back and add oldids on the events that DMN listed above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can't add oldids on that sequence, as it makes no sense. FAR? Nominations aren't part of articlehistory. We need a history, date, and oldid on each addition to GA and deletion from WP:GA. Someone from GA should fix this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was meant to be GAR. D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the template doesn't allow anything outside of process or for any kind of narrative result. What exactly was incorrect in how it was/is ? Narson (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

All this fiddling with article history fails to observe the main point. The article was listed at good article nominations. For its status to change, a review is necessary. Once such a review has taken place a GAN action can be added to article history. There has been no such review. Therefore, there is no change in the article history. Thank you. Geometry guy 23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was a review, and a very thorough one at that. You will have to forgive me if I decided not to waste time creating a template, but if you want to slave yourself to process-wonkery I will do so. Or, you can just review the damned article yourself. Resolute 23:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So, where is this thorough review? Geometry guy 23:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't feel it necessary to throw up a template when I could just as easily add my support to the consensus on the GAR page. Rest assured, I did thoroughly read it, and I made my decision. That obviously wasn't good enough, so screw it. Someone else can waste their time on this article. Resolute 04:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My changes were removed and one of my talk messages were deleted, not important, but anyway, the current articlehistory can't be correct because it shows two delistings. Anyway, the error cat isn't triggered, so I'll let you all sort it out. I think the ah I left in place was correct, but it's a mystery to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This all seems very silly. Look, it should never have been de-listed in the first place, it got re-listed which took us back to status quo. Whether the methods used were correct, the outcome was the right one. Does it matter if a chad is hanging or dimpled? Narson (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but the casual relisting created a mess. If this were not a controversial biography of a living person we could let it slide, but it is, so any endorsement of the article needs a demonstrable (linkable, thorough) review. Geometry guy 00:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand. To be honest I've never been a huge ends justify means chap. It is just somewhat baffling. I've only dealt with FAs before, which seem to be far more of a community event than GAs. Narson (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Sent back to GAN where it was before it was inappropriatly promoted. D.M.N. (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how it was inappropriately promoted? Christ... It's no wonder this project has trouble finding people willing to review articles. Resolute 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't follow the proper instructions for reviewing articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean I didn't post a template. And I didn't because it seemed unnecessary to repeat what was contained in the GAR page. But thank god we have you to correct these critical "mistakes", eh? Why ask when you can rush to judge, eh? Resolute 16:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, as I am now thoroughly confused, can someone please simply state:

• What is the status of the article?
• If it is delisted, what needs to be done to re-list it?
• If the GAR found that the de-listing was hasty, why can't it just be re-listed based on that (Essentially a revert of a bold but disputed move by Spectre) and thus avoid the need for all this silliness?

Narson (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It is a former GA and a current good article nomination. All that is needed to relist is for an independent reviewer to post a review at /GA1 explaining how the current article meets the criteria. I think the main reason this problem arose is because the GAR closing editor Giggy renominated the article at WP:GAN without templating this page properly. I added a GAN template at the top to remedy this.

The reviewer could be Resolute, but this user has been somewhat pissed off by recent events, and I completely understand that. I get pissed off by jobsworths and process sticklers all the time myself, and it makes me pretty miserable to represent the latter.

However, there must be a fresh GAN review: the GAR was closed on that basis, and changes of GA status must be accountably recorded in the article history. If no one else steps forward, I may do it myself, but I would much rather it were done by someone who did not contribute to the article or the GAR. Geometry guy 20:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This truly is a cursed article - any new review will be the, what, fourth?, required to return the dratted thing to GA, when only minimal work was ever required (and was completed a month ago) to maintain GA status. Thanks to Resolute for taking the time to look at the article, and given the complicated series of events since Sceptre's original rather precipitate de-listing, I'm not surprised he was confused. A minor plea to GG and others: is this really the most efficient way of dealing with this situation? Strikes me it would have been a lot faster and less trouble to just pass as a result of the GAR I initiated. 4u1e (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the BDSM catagory niggles at me for some reason. It seems to be outside of what defines Max Mosley and is only lightly touched on by the article. I'm not going to revert out of hand, but thought discussion would be useful Narson (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please revert all such additions per WP:BLP. I've done this one. Geometry guy 06:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier this year, Mosley stated whilst being interviewed on BBC Parliament that he is part of the BDSM community and that he has been doing it for 45 years. The media's discovery of it, and the legal cases, mean that it is a major part of his life and fame. Doesn't that qualify him for the BDSM category? Best name (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If we've got a solid reference that he has publicly identified himself as part of that community, then yes I guess it would be. Better to find something written, or a legitimate link to a video of that interview, I guess. I don't really think he's all that famous as a member of the BDSM community though - I suspect he's (partly) famous as that guy who got caught with his pants down (something very different), and even that is mentioned surprisingly little only a year on. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some recently added content from the article, because although interesting and colourful it was not (in my judgement, natch!) especially relevant to Max Mosley. The parts removed include:

• Sir Oswald and Diana's affair during his previous marriage, and her divorce from her first husband. How is this relevant to Max? It happened before Max's birth and why not mention Sir Oswald's numerous other affairs while we're at it? Any of Sir Oswald's affairs during Max's early life might be relevant, but I don't recall any. Going into all this detalil also raises the question of what happened to the first Lady Mosley, who died of peritonitis in 1933 - do we need to describe that as well?
• Diana's friendship with Hitler - while it's important to know that Max's parents were full-on fascists, since they were the earliest and presumably strongest influence on him, what is the value of raising this interesting tidbit, which also predates Max's birth?
• The 'Hitler wedding' - as above, only more so!
• Max's aunt. We've listed his immediate relatives (parents, siblings, wife and children) why are we adding one of the other five Mitford aunts? Most of them were notable to some extent, but I don't think it particularly adds value to list them all here.

Open to discussion. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. the article has in previous GARs been accused of being POV by raising negative sounding points that in fact have little or nothing to do with the man himself. 4u1e (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

This is non-admissable for the article, Wikipedia in general, or for a general discussion. But what does he choose as a backdrop for an interview with the BBC? A Ferrari car, and with tobacco advertising. <sigh> Mark83 (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this be merged into the main text to make the article more neutral. I've been considering this for a while - in fact I think the whole of the FIA Presidency section should be re-structured along the lines used for most political figures, where the sections are divided primarily by periods of office, rather than particular topics. This would give us something like this:

• FIA Presidency
  • 1993-1997
  • 1997-2001
  • 2001-2005
  • 2005-2009
  • ??

See also my sandbox for a draft version based on the existing text.

Views? 4u1e (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the inclusion of this category highly POV, if not outright libellous. The category states "Sex scandals are sex abuse cases ..." - Mosley did not partake in any abusive or illegal acts. It was only treated as a scandal by tabloids, most notably the NOTW, who were found guilty of invasion of privacy - the invasion of privacy was at least as much of a "scandal".

We are also bound by WP:BLP - in particular, see Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.

And can I also remind editors to remain WP:CIVIL when making edit summaries. Mdwh (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It was constantly referred to as a sex scandal in the media. I'm reverting it back in. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't really be reverting contentious material on a high-BLP subject. I suggest discussing before any more reverts take place, otherwise the page may be fully-protected. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If Mdwh had entered into dialogue without reverting after his bold edit was undone, I wouldn't have had to. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

By the very definition of the word "scandal", this was indeed a sex scandal. I agree with Narson, it should stay. If the category states "sex abuse", then the category is wrong, not the placing of this article in the category. Readro (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Was it a scandal? Certainly. Was it about sex? Well the video and press coverage are absolutely unequivocal that it was. Ergo, it was a sex scandal. The category header sounds like it needs adjusting, but the Mosely case was a scandalous one concerning sex. I'd love to see him try and sue about that... Pyrope 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted it is also a strong part of his wider notability outside of motorsport these days. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who first entered into dialogue - it was the other editor who reverted without entering into dialogue. It's better now that the category text has been fixed, though we also need to fix the superset Category:Scandals, which claims A scandal is an exposed behaviour of an individual or a group which conflicts with accepted norms of behaviour of a given society within which they live. It includes publicized allegations or factual evidence of wrong-doing, disgrace or moral outrage. - I'll have a go at rewording. We also need to satisfy Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. In this case, I agree it fulfils "allegations of wrongdoing", but not imo a "moral outrage" (from scandal). Although we mention the NOTW details, we need to clarify the use of the word "scandal", which is currently not in the text. If it was constantly mentioned as a sex scandal, then that would be something we should put in the text with the references, to give context to the category. (Though we should be wary of this logic - after all, the media also referred to him as being in a Nazi orgy, but I don't think that's a reason to stick a Nazi category on this article...)

As for notability, that's not the point - I'm not disputing us covering the NOTW (on the contrary, I think the issue should be mentioned), I'm disputing the category and the category definitions. It's POV to suggest "He's notable for being involved in a sex scandal" - he's notable for the NOTW video showing acts he talk part in, and also for suing the NOTW about it, and winning. Mdwh (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

His case was for invasion of privacy, not for defamation or libel. He admitted the events happened, insisting (correctly) that such an action was in breach of his Article 8 rights under the ECHR (and denying the spin put on them by the paper). He even states that such things are deeply embaressing due to their nature. As for moral outrage, it is noted that such actions are found by some to be immoral in the judgement too. Really, that this as a sex scandal is somewhat of a no brainer for me. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and with about half of all F1 teams and many major players in the sport calling for him to resign I think there is plenty of evidence that there was widespread moral outrage at the time, as was widely covered in many many reputable news sources. Pyrope 23:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The category does not state 'Sex scandals are sex abuse cases' anymore.--EchetusXe (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that was changed during the discussion (As a result of?). Should the comments from the editor of the daily mail be included? About the posible impact of the case? Is it suitable for inclusion? I'm reluctant to shoe horn more into the section. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should make it very clear that Max is the son of the British fascist and that he also has fascist tendencies. It is not the place of Wikipedia to clean things up when we all know what a scumbag this man is.—217.201.0.59 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely clear from the article that Max is the son of 'the British fascist' (Oswald Mosley). It is also very clear from the article that until his mid-twenties, Max publicly supported his father and the Union Movement. That Max now has fascist tendencies is not, to the best of my knowledge, in the public record. If you have access to any reliable sources that support the assertion that he now has such views, feel free to add them. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also not the job of the encyclopedia to make a value judgement (Whether or not he is a scumbag being a judgement based upon personal values). We just present the facts and people can draw their own conclusions. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go through the article and give it a good copy edit for prose issues, in case you decide to go for another FAC. Feel free to revert any of the changes you disagree with (obviously). Apterygial 08:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done about half. I'll come back in a day or two to finish it off. Apterygial 09:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I'm not sure where Tommy turrell has got to these days, but I'm slowly working my way up to another stab at FA. I've to add some material on Mosley's clashes with Karel van Miert first, and probably something on the cost cutting stuff too. 4u1e (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this page's Article milestones section and thought I'd help extend its already impressive size! ;) Apterygial 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Up and down, up and down; it's starting to make me feel sea-sick.... 4u1e (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've gone through and given the prose a copy edit. Essentially, it was fine; I only had to break up a few long sentences and fix a few links. One concern I do have is the density of the references. There are several statements in there which are not referenced and should be. With your permission, I can go through the text and {{fact}} tag those statements. Otherwise, I can come back once you feel like another tilt at FAC and do another copy edit, just to make sure that everything is as good as we can make it. Cheers, Apterygial 12:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: ce - thanks. Re: refs - Gah, not again! ;-) Seriously, please do: it'll be painful, but useful. The only thing I will say is that if I've only put one ref right at the end of a paragraph, chances are it's because the whole paragraph really is covered in the reference. Otherwise, fire away! 4u1e (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably do it about 11:00 UTC on the 24th. Just so you know, and you can see if you can get there before the whole bit gets removed for BLP reasons. Apterygial 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. It's generally OK. Some of the tags are there directly after quotations, because I think at FA level you have to double them up (i.e., a cite after the quote, and then an identical one which references everything else in the section at the end of the section). I looked at some of the sources you cite in the last section and some of them do not include the information you cite, generally criticisms of Mosley. I have tagged them. Some of the tags are at the end of paragraphs, so they look uncited. This may be a simple solution of just moving the cite to the end of the paragraph. It is actually better then I remember, which is weird. Good luck! Apterygial 11:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta. I've knocked off the very quick wins. The remaining ones are largely the product of the process of compressing the (previously very long!) section on this summer's little escapade. They'll take a little longer to fix, as ideally I want to find a summary source that covers them rather than useing 10 different news stories. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted more detailed information about what actually occured, as there was virtually no information in the article regarding the events in the Chelsea flat. This information is in the public domain and so needs to be shown in the article. One editor removed it, stating that it gave to much detail about the incident, but this is his/her own subjective opinion. Before it is removed again, I would like to take this issue to a dispute resolution to get other editors' feedback on the issue.

I also included a video link for the News of the World video and this too was removed. This again is on Youtube and other locations on the Internet and so should also be on this article page as it directly pertains to the whole affair. Again, this was removed and no reason was cited. I would also like this taken to dispute resolution for other editors to give feedback. Ivankinsman (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done very little article writing on this page, but as you can see above I have helped with copyediting and referencing. If you look at the top of the page, you can see the already lengthy "Article milestones" section. I can basically tell you that every sentence and fact in this article has been hammered out by countless editors in many different forums (FAC, GAN, GAR, PR). 4u1e removed (I assume) that information because its prior inclusion was deemed in those forums to give undue weight to the rest of the article, as well as being based primarily in unsubstantiated speculation. Further, the News of the World was successfully sued by MM for printing that information (or speculation) and its continued existence on Wikipedia puts us in a dangerous position (especially given the BLP nature of this article).

These are not just my views. These are also the views of the primary editors of this article, as well as the editors who have reviewed the article. You may argue that this is what MM is most known for publicly, but an expansion in this article in this area gives undue emphasis to it. I would appreciate it if you do not reinsert the information I will now remove from the article, pending a change from the consensus already established on this page and its associated review pages. Thank you, Apterygial 11:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As anybody with half a brain would realise, youtube contains copyright violations. Displaying a video of Mosley taken without his permission? Guess some people need to, gasp, learn some basic law. The fact Mosley won his case, yet some want to overinflate the incident indicates they are POV pushers... Minkythecat (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk down to me as if I was a moron. I don't think this is really the right tone to use when trying to resolve an editorial problem on wikipedia. So, I will include the copy here (and video link) and let's see what other editors say about this issue: Ivankinsman (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The 67-year-old father of two was caught on video in a "torture chamber" set up in a £2million Chelsea flat., Mosley is allegedly shown enacting a concentration camp-style scene in which he plays both victim and guard. One woman inspects his head for lice before he is interrogated and whipped, before Mr Mosley then switches roles and "tortures" one of the prostitutes. He even issues orders in German. It was claimed he paid £2,500 in cash for the orgy, which is said to have lasted five hours.^[2] Mr Mosley also used an English pseudonym because there was no Nazi element to the game, adopting the name of Tim Barnes to play a prison official during a role-playing exercise. In Mosley's court case against the News of the World, the court heard that Mosley was subjected to a medical examination involving a notebook which had the name Tim Barnes at the top. The court also heard that 'woman E' conspired with the News of the World to obtain the secret recordings but was not paid the £25,000 fee originally offered. The newspaper's editor, Mr Myler, said all fees were "renegotiated" because his paper was being hit by the credit crunch.^[3]

• News of the World Max Mosley video

Might I ask why you think such detail "needs" to be in the article? What I had for my Christmas dinner is in the public domain, but I see no need to document it on Wikipedia, nor to link to a video. Max Mosley is of note because he is President of the FIA - his alleged activities are of note only in so far as they have affected that role. There is in my opinion already enough coverage of the scandal in the article. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear... POV pusher gets upset easily. I'll explain it incredibly slowly for you. Mosley sued. Mosley won. You thus want proven libellous comments to be re-added to the article. Adding "allegedly" means nothing, merely adding those claims in any form is defamation. So, basically, he had sex with prostitutes. Whoopee-doo. You want to add overly large coverage to a basically minor event, which only gained coverage due to a newspaper adding libellous defamatory information. Ain't going to happen.

Oh, and for your further information, the Foundation won't cover your ass should Mosley sue over your wanted additions. It'll all be on your head. Minkythecat (talk)

And to add further information for you to digest, youtube videos are not reliable sources here. Given you've been told that several times across several pages, might be worth you taking that simple fact on board. Minkythecat (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, your allegation that the President of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) having a sadomasochistic sex session with 5 prostitutes in only 'a minor event' is plainly absurd. It might be minor in your eyes but not in a lot of other people's eyes. If he was Joe Smith fine, but not someone holding a high-level position of this nature. Secondly, putting a link on the article page is not the same as having the video embedded into the article. It is no Wikipedia that is liable but the host of the video itself (in this case, Metacafe), so I don't think your on a sound footing here ref. your legal knowledge. Thirdly, Mosley tried to go to court to get this video removed off the web but failed [], so he's not suing anybody over this. Ivankinsman (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, FIA is a PRIVATE organisation. It's not a PUBLIC organisation funded directly by the taxpayer, so where's the public interest, eh? It's absolutely minor because what somebody does in their own time is entirely their life choice. Secondly, you're linking to a video clip which was ILLEGALLY filmed. Thirdly, Mosley can sue over the fact your comments reintroduce defamation by referring to the Nazi overtones, which he's already disproved in a court of law. So, what drives you to try to emphasise the Nazi claims, especially since you're operating against consensus? Minkythecat (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Minky - your tone is not helping here. Can we please sort this out by polite discussion, rather than name-calling?. Thank you.
Ivan - it was me that originally removed this, so I guess it's helpful if I explain myself. The removal was explained in my edit summary, but there's only so much you can fit in, obviously.
Firstly, the video. The copy of the News of the World's video on Youtube is almost certainly a copyright violation, which alone is enough reason for us not to link it here.We don't include or link to copyright violations (see WP:YT). In addition to that, the video is unsuitable under WP:BLP, which says "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." The Judge decided that the event was a breach of Mosley's privacy, so what justification do we have for repeating that offence here?
Regarding the suggested additional paragraph, this article was delisted from GA a few months ago because it contained, in the view of one editor, too much detail on this one event in an article that covers a life that has newsworthy elements over a period of sixty-odd years. When that decision was reviewed, the community view, without exception, was that the detail should be cut down extensively. The version I reverted to, and the version that was passed at GA, was the result of that consensus (you can see details of the discussions here and here).
I'm happy to look at including details if they add value, but the suggested words are mostly just salacious titbits on exactly how Mosley went about his session with the prostitutes. We've already said that he had sado-masochistic sex with five prostitutes, that there were accusations of Nazi role-playing and that as it turns out, these were found to be baseless. What is the value of knowing that he used the name "Tim Barnes" or that "Woman E" didn't get her full fee? Ivan, can you point out which points you feel are currently missing in the article that actually throw additional light on Mosley? Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with 4u here that consensus is against expanding the details there. If Ivan wants to try and develop a consensus for expnding he is, of course, welcome to try but should do so here at the talk page. Can we please cut out the hyperbole about libel and sueing of asses? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K., looking at the previous discussion over this, I'm happy to run with this consensus, and am not going to pursue it (plus the fact that his mother was a Mitford sister makes me pro rather than against Mosley anyway) so we'll keep the details off the main article page as agreed. Ivankinsman (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a little bit of detail missing from the News of the World allegations section, the last paragraph states that 'Mosley said that he was still intending to stand down when his term runs out in October 2009, but will take the final decision in June of that year'. To my mind there needs to be a mention at the beginning of the section that he said that he "was never going to go beyond 2009" ^[4] back in April 2008 otherwise the bit about still intending to stand down doesn't have any context. I know this is only my POV but isn't it also notable that he has twice gone on record as saying he will retire and then twice said that he has so much support that he simply can't?Tommy turrell (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back, Tommy. Yes, we definitely need to work that in somewhere. He looks to be working his way up to standing again - hence all his comments recently about how tough the job is etc etc. 4u1e (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)