Talk:Max Mosley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Good article Max Mosley has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Max Mosley appeared on portal:Formula One as F1 Selected Article for May, 2008.

You can vote for the next selected articles at F1 Selected Articles.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
Archive
Archives
1



Contents

[edit] Nazi orgy allegations

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)

[edit] Authoritative source

Here's a mainstream reliable source that reported on it (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/30/sports/EU-SPT-CAR-Mosley-Sex-Scandal.php). It doesn't confirm or deny it, but it's now worth putting a line or two, at least noting that the scandal exists. --LoreleiLynn (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose the following:

On 30 March 2008 The News of the World, a British tabloid newspaper, alleged that Mosley "engaged in sexual acts with five prostitutes in a scenario that involved Nazi role-playing."<ref>{{cite news | title = FIA wants to stay clear of sex scandal involving its president and newspaper | work = International Herald Tribune | date = 2008-03-30 | url = http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/30/sports/EU-SPT-CAR-Mosley-Sex-Scandal.php | accessdate =2008-03-30 }}</ref>

The Guardian has also referred to the allegations (http://sport.guardian.co.uk/formulaone2008/story/0,,2269534,00.html). As LoreleiLynn says, acknowledging that the allegations have been made is reasonable. (If they turn out to be false, I think the world's biggest libel action awaits.) AuntFlo (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


The news item now appears on the ITV.com website, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, in fact every major news agency is running this item - please re instate the article :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.41.172 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Nazi orgy" allegations

On 30 March 2008 The News of the World, a British tabloid newspaper, alleged that Mosley "engaged in sexual acts with five prostitutes in a scenario that involved Nazi role-playing."[1] The Times reported calls for his resignation from the director of the Holocaust Centre and Sir Stirling Moss, the former world champion. ITV commentator and Sunday Times columnist Martin Brundle who was the subject of a libel action brought by Mosley, said "It’s not appropriate behaviour for the head of any global body such as the FIA."[2]

Moss Supports him to stay on in the times source. should add support from Bernie and the max consults his lawers bit.

Mark83 (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


indeed, the times is a RS and therefore - the reason this was locked (to prevent additions using poor sources) has been irrelevant. --87.112.38.211 (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
it's funny that Neville Thurlbeck did not spell his own name correctly in his own story!
And he's a Lewis Hamilton fan? come on we all know that not to be true! Shoddy work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.129.169 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to make clear - in the suggested paragraph, the first quote is IHT, not NOTW. No policy objections have been given yet. I'll give it a few hours for any concerns to be raised before unprotecting and adding the passage. Mark83 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I broadly agree with your edit but think that you need to correct the bit about Moss because he supports Mosley in the times source the bit about Bernie is notable too.


I think Mark83's version works. Focuses on the Times and it looks pretty balanced to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Ecclestone's support wasn't in the article when I wrote the first draft, it is important. Mark83 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
apart from the source is rubbish, look at the title "Max Mosley’s son faces calls to quit as Formula One chief after ‘Nazi’ orgy" notice the mistake, Max Mosley son? what he got to do with it!
wow they changed it already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.129.161 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
A typo in a headline doesn't make a source automatically "rubbish". Mark83 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Redraft:

On 30 March 2008 The News of the World, a British tabloid newspaper, alleged that Mosley "engaged in sexual acts with five prostitutes in a scenario that involved Nazi role-playing."[3] The Times reported a call for his resignation from the director of the Holocaust Centre. Sir Stirling Moss, the former world champion, stated that despite his wish for Mosley to stay, he believed his position to be untenable. ITV commentator and Sunday Times columnist Martin Brundle who was the subject of a libel action brought by Mosley, said "It’s not appropriate behaviour for the head of any global body such as the FIA."[4] Mosley received the support of Bernie Ecclestone who said "Assuming it's all true, what people do privately is up to them. I don't honestly believe [it] affects the sport in any way. Knowing Max it might be all a bit of a joke. You know, it's one of those things where he's sort of taking the p***, rather than anything against Jewish people."[4]
That looks good to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.129.161 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Apart from Moss was never the world champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.129.161 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
is in the times ref as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.129.161 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
wonder how long it will take Ashling O’Connor and Ed Gorman to read this comment and update this time!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.129.161 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Should it include the FIA's "no comment" as well? Reuters-- Diniz (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since it now appears we have several reliable sources, I think we're OK, and the above redraft is fine by me. Antandrus (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Couple of suggestions: Brundle was recently the subject of a libel action. As Dinisz suggests, we should add the FIA's 'No comment'. 4u1e (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ "FIA wants to stay clear of sex scandal involving its president and newspaper", International Herald Tribune, 2008-03-30. Retrieved on 2008-03-30. 
  2. ^ O’Connor ; Gorman, Ed, Ashling. "Max Mosley’s son faces calls to quit as Formula One chief after ‘Nazi’ orgy", The Times, 2008-03-30. Retrieved on 2008-03-30. 
  3. ^ "FIA wants to stay clear of sex scandal involving its president and newspaper", International Herald Tribune, 2008-03-30. Retrieved on 2008-03-30. 
  4. ^ a b O’Connor ; Gorman, Ed, Ashling. "Max Mosley faces calls to quit as Formula One chief after ‘Nazi’ orgy", The Times, 2008-03-30. Retrieved on 2008-03-30. 

[edit] Comment on protection

I understand the willingness to keep the article updated but this is the biography of a living human being and we should be extra careful about how all this is presented. The allegations will be extremely damaging if they hold water but at present they're still allegations and they're not coming from the most reputable sources. Note that the articles in more serious publications are not of the form "Mosley did this and that" but of the form "tabloids claim Mosley did this and that" so for all practical purposes, they're as solid as the tabloid. I would suggest keeping the article protected for another few days to avoid trouble. Hopefully, details and reactions might allow us to a) confirm the allegations, b) present the whole thing with the proper context and with due weight. In the meantime, the article need not be completely static. It's probably reasonable to agree on a few very careful sentences to keep the article updated and to include Mosley's response (if he ever chooses to respond). But unprotection should wait until the initial shitstorm passes or the section on the incident will start taking half the space of the article and will be full of speculation-of-the-day content. Pichpich (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Although you're right to say that the alligations are not so far from the most reliable of sources, they are already relevent to Mosley's biography. Every big name in the sport has made some sort of statement either saying that he should resign or saying that what he does behind closed doors is no one's business but his own. Even if it is proven to be false, this story will stick with him forever and people will come to his Wiki page looking for information that will explain jokes and references.212.124.225.66 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


here is another story in the times. Why is there not a section about this yet? --87.114.29.181 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mosley's Response

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)

[edit] Appeal

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)

[edit] Comments from failed FAC

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

[edit] Laserbrain's comments

  • Oppose for now on 1a. A copyedit and quite a bit of polish needed. This should have been posted at Peer Review before coming here. Many examples follow, but these are not all. As these took me almost an hour, I suspect no one has had the constitution to thoroughly review the entire article.
(Comment I know, proposed by others as well, but I'm having a singular amount of difficulty getting anyone other than the regulars to do it. Recent events haven't helped, obviously. As it happens, it was peer reviewed, but at BIO not at the main peer review page. 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
Check the new volunteers list at Peer Review; it might not have been there when you checked before. There are people who volunteer to review, for example, any sporting-related articles. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I have. Three requests and zip. I'm not complaining, once you list your name there requests tend to turn up in large numbers and it can rapidly become too much to deal with. 4u1e (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Check the MoS for how to do quotations. A lot of times your quotes are full sentences but you omit the leading comma, begin them with a lower-case letter, and fail to place the ending punctuation inside the quote.
      • Will do. 4u1e (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Think I'm there. I don't see all that many full sentences, but rather a lot of fragments. Leading comma (not mentioned in the MoS, by the way!) and initial capital are often missing because the quote has been incorporated into the sentence, and also in some cases because it's not the first word of the sentence from which it came. Is the current version closer at least to what it should be? 4u1e (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The first sentence reads like the FIA represents all motoring organizations.. that's not true, is it?
      • Broadly speaking, yes it is. I'm sure it's not every single motoring organisation, but it is the worldwide umbrella organisation for major national bodies. Do we need to specify that, or is it obvious that we don't mean the Little Snodgrass branch of the Bond Bug owners' club? ;-) 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, perhaps we need some clarity about the reach of this organization, especially regarding North American race leagues like NASCAR, CART, Indy, etc. You say the FIA is the governing body for Formula One, but do they cover these as well?
          • To the best of my knowledge, yes. To my understanding, the FIA directly oversees F1, The World Rally Championship and the World Touring Car championship, but it is also the umbrella organisation for National Sporting Authorities (NSAs). According to this page, in North America the series you mention come together under ACCUS, for which the FIA is the parent body. However, I just checked on the FIA website and there is nothing listed under the USA for affiliated clubs and NSAs. The FIA and the American organisations have had a difficult relationship in the past, so it's worth my checking whether anything has changed recently. 4u1e (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
            • It's not that unusual an idea, by the way. FIFA is soccer football's world governing body, including having authority over the MLS. 4u1e (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Ah, it's just an error on the FIA website - if you get to the page via a different route it does list the US NSA and motoring organisations. The FIA is the worldwide parent body. ACCUS in the States is an affiliate of the FIA, and acts as a parent body within the US for the organisations that run the various sporting series you mentioned above. (See here) Current description of the FIA as representing "the interests of motoring organisations and motor car users worldwide" seems accurate, therefore. 4u1e (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think "Fascism" is supposed to be capitalized in the middle of the sentence.
      • I would have thought it was, as the proper name of a political movement, which is what we're talking about here. The Fascism/fascism page mostly uses lower case, but it's usually talking about the concept, not the movement. Note that we use Conservative party and Labour party elsewhere. Anyone able to advise? 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "Fascist Party", yes, but fascism with a lower case "f", I think. Adrian M. H. 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'd tend to agree. Readro (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Done. 4u1e (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There seems a bit too much about Mosley's early life in the lead. You should leave it out unless it's a key point of the article; as is, the article seems to be mostly about his racing career.
      • Good point. Needs a re-write, but I suppose we might as well wait until the current brouhaha has played out. 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You mention in both the lead and the Retirement heading that people have speculated about Mosley's retirement since his announcement and retraction in 2004. I don't see that backed up in the citation for that passage. Since the lead isn't cited, you need to cite that statement where it is made in the Retirement heading. You also need to cite a source that backs up the statement that the controversy has led to the speculations.
      • OK, will investigate. 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "As a result, Mosley and his older brother, Alexander, grew up separated from their parents for the first few years of their lives." Bad prose.. if you take out the phrase "separated from their parents" look what you have.
      • I'm sorry to say that you've lost me there. 'Separated from their parents' isn't a subordinate clause, is it? 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I think he's referring to the fact that most people grow up during the first few years of their lives. Suggest replacing "grew up" with "were".
          • I know a few who don't seem to have done... No, you're right, I was looking for something different. 4u1e (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Done. 4u1e (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This may be a yankee's ignorance of British terminology, but why do you say "Sir Oswald Mosley" on first mention but only "Diana Mitford", later called her Lady Diana?
      • Because she only became Lady Diana after marrying Sir Oswald. Plus it's the name of the article on her, although we could pipe it. 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Their children were refused entry to several schools, due to a combination of their wildness..." Suggest a better term than "wildness". Perhaps "wild behavior" or such, as I'm sure the children were domesticated.
      • Not so much as one might expect. I think that was the point. Wildness and wild behaviour are slightly different things. The wording used in the source is that they were "wild and uncontrollable". 'Wildness' seems closer (very slightly!) to the source text. 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Mosley, like many people involved in Formula One, lives in Monaco." Really? I looked up three random Formula One drivers that I could think of and none of them live in Monaco. Needs a citation.
      • You were unlucky with the three you picked then. This is one of those things that's a real pig to cite. It's usually very hard to find sources that actually say 'many F1 figures live in Monaco'. It's very easy to find lots of different sources for individuals doing so, but you end up with a real mess of a citation. And how many do you need to find to justify 'many'. This really comes under the heading of common knowledge in the area under discussion, which if I'm remembering correctly means that it doesn't actually have to be cited. Could I persuade you of that? :) 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Common knowledge, yes, but should be altered to specify "many of Formula One's drivers" rather than key figures. I don't know of many CEOs, team principals, or tech directors who have any connection with Monaco. Adrian M. H. 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Agreed no citation is needed if reworded. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Done. 4u1e (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Trevor Grundy, a central figure in the UM's Youth Movement, writes of the 16-year-old Mosley painting the 'flash and circle' symbol" Why the single quotes? Also, why do you call it "circle and flash" after that?
      • I suppose just to identify it as a single item. Open to suggestions on a better way to do it. Hyphens? Should standardise on flash and circle (simply because that's the name of the Wikipedia article) 4u1e (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually what I meant to point out is that they should be double quotes per our MoS. Single quotes should only be used when it's a quote within a quote. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Done. On reflection, I don't think quotes are needed here. 4u1e (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "As a result of his involvement in this fracas, Mosley junior..." No junior. You have consistently been calling him "Mosley" and his father "Sir Oswald".
      • True. A hangover from previous versions. Should be changed. 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. 4u1e (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Mosley was a member of the Territorial Army during the early 1960s, training as a parachutist. This training led some national English newspapers to link him to the French right wing Organisation de l'armée secrète (OAS), which was involved in the Algerian War at that time." I don't follow why training as a British parachutist would link someone to the OAS.
      • No. The OAS's membership was largely drawn from the French army, and very probably from their own parachutists. I can see that there may have been some kind of link emerging from that. Unfortunately, the source doesn't make it any clearer. I'd almost like to drop this bit. It's correctly sourced, but I suspect it may not reflect the facts terribly well. Any other views? 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Is he related to Alf Mosley?
      • No. I would have thought that was clear from the context - I can't really think of an unobtrusive way of specifying that he is not. What do you think? 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not that important. I just wanted to make sure you mentioned it if he actually was. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "His father told him that the company 'would certainly go bankrupt, but it would be good experience for a later career.'" Check your quoting.. if the word "would" replaces "will" in the quote, you need to place parens around it.
      • Quote is accurate. We're actually quoting Mosley, not his father here. The full passage is :"[Max Mosley] says, 'My father told me we would certainly go bankrupt, but it would be good experience for a later career.'" Being really picky, we could say "Mosley reports that his father told him that the company 'would certainly...'." I don't see that adds any value, though. 4u1e (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Two of these were run by March's own in-house 'works' team and the rest by customer teams." Single quotes again?
      • Introduction of a term likely to be new to the reader. It's not a technical term though, so italics seemed inappropriate. 4u1e (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • De-quote and inter-wikilink to the Wikionary entry. I'll write one if it doesn't already exist. See Factory team – needs a cleanup and some changes to the finer points of the meaning. Adrian M. H. 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Should be double quotes, but some context would be nice for lay readers. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Wikilinked as proposed by Adrian. I'm trying to avoid inserting a clunking sentence like 'A works team is a team run the company that manufactures the cars' into the text. iirc we used to have one like that and someone complained at either the peer review or the GA review. The intention was that saying 'run by March's own in-house works team' gave enough context for the term that when next encountered, it should be obvious what it means. Not successfully, I take it. :) 4u1e (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I have just stubled upon Factory-backed, which may be useful here in preference to linking off-WP. Adrian M. H. 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "The March works team's contract with their lead driver..." I don't get why "works" is in there.. leftover from something else?
      • From previous experience, the concept of a works team, that is a team run by the factory that manufactures the cars, is a concept that readers struggle with. We may be overdoing it, but it seems to pay to keep on emphasising the difference between works and customer teams. 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Understood; let's provide some context as above for lay readers. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Hmm, I'm not arguing very consistently here, am I? :D The solution here must come from the changes made to address the previous point, as you say. Is the link enough to achieve it? 4u1e (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "...with its lead driver", not "their". A team is a single entity. I'd change that myself if it wasn't protected. Adrian M. H. 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • A team can also be a collective noun. I'd have thought there was nothing wrong with either wording. Readro (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Agree with Readro. 4u1e (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Utter nonsense, frankly. Sorry to be a bit harsh, but this bad habit seems to originate from some areas of the press (autosport.com for example). It really annoys me. One would write, for example, "the company has made a profit" or the "the team has gained a new sponsor". Adrian M. H. 19:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
                • That is a little harsh - it's certainly normal usage in sources other than the press. Not quite sure what the examples illustrate; it's not unusual to write 'the team have gained a new sponsor'. Is there anything in the MoS? (I'm not desperately excited about this, so ultimately I'm happy to change to your suggestion, Adrian. I'm just pushing back a little. :)) 4u1e (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • That it is often used does not make it correct – that's my point. "The teams have" and "the team has", but "the team have" does not, in a strict way, make grammatical sense. The use of correct formal English does not need to be prescribed in any style manual. Adrian M. H. 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • Concur with Adrian M. H. "The team have" is incorrect grammar. --Laser brain (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
                      • You're right, correct usage doesn't need to be prescribed in a style manual, but correct usage does change over time. For example, 'motor sport' is strictly two words, but normal usage in this context is to have it as one word. ;-) Anyone, enough pontificating from me - point accepted and I will comb through for any other instances (and in Brabham as well, where I suspect the same problem will appear!) Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • added comment to the "motorsport" section below. Adrian M. H. 10:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Motorsports author Mike Lawrence has suggested that the shortfall forced him into short-term deals, which maintained cashflow, but were not in the best long-term interests of the company." Motorsports has been two words, now it is one? No commas, use that instead of which.
      • Motorsports two words - correct, should be changed.
        • I always use "motorsport" unless in a US context. Perhaps we should discuss that at the project talk page sometime. Adrian M. H. 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • 'Motorsport' is common in the context, much less so out of it. Dictionaries tend not to include 'Motorsport'. (And the magazine is 'Motor Sport'!). Agree that we should probably make an agreement for WP:MOTOR and daughter projects, and I suspect it would end up being 'Motorsport'. 4u1e (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
            • My copy of Webster's states "motorsport", as does my 1983 edition of the OED. Interestingly, the Encarta Dictionary points from "auto racing" to "motor racing", focussing on the alternative British term rather than the US term as I would have expected. Adrian M. H. 09:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Sigh. I'm not doing very well on this one am I? OK, I'm going by memory, not from a dictionary, so I concede this point too. Which is actually kind of cool, because I prefer 'motorsport' for this particular activity! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
                • OK, standardised on 'motorsport'. Single remaining exception is the "World Federation of Motor Sport" which was so spelled at the time. 4u1e (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • 'spend to succeed', more single quotes.
      • Scare quotes for jargon. 4u1e (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Should be double quotes per MoS. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • replaced with direct quote. 'Spend to succeed' is too jargon-y anyway. 4u1e (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "March-BMWs won five of the next 11 European Formula Two championships." Why hyphenated?
      • Normal usage in a motorsport context. It's a March chassis with a BMW engine. A 'March BMW' would probably be a BMW car (i.e. engine and chassis) run by the March team. Could change it to "Marches powered by BMW engines..." Better? 4u1e (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • 4u1e is right: that must be hyphenated to reflect universal standard practice. Adrian M. H. 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, it must be hyphenated. Readro (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "During the 1977 season, Herd was pressurised by BMW" Surely "pressured".
      • Suspect both are normal usage, but happy to change it. 4u1e (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Prefer "pressured". Adrian M. H. 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Agreed. Readro (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Looks like I'm on my own with that one! Happy with 'pressured'. 4u1e (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
              • And done. 4u1e (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
More later. --Laser brain (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family and Early Life

"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)

[edit] Piss vs p****

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?
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)

[edit] Horizontally striped uniforms, not vertically...

--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)

[edit] 2007 Formula One espionage controversy

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)

[edit] Sports pro reliable reference? Discuss

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)

[edit] Relevance of parents' Nazi connections Nazi Wedding

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)

[edit] sources

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)


[edit] Mosley's wife

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)

[edit] IMDb page

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)

[edit] Piquet's reponse

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)