![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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'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)
"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)
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)
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]
Mark83 ( talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Redraft:
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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...
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's how I see it:
D.M.N. ( talk) 17:58, 16 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)
Note: Sent back to GAN where it was before it was inappropriatly promoted. D.M.N. ( talk) 07:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, as I am now thoroughly confused, can someone please simply state:
Narson ( talk) 19:08, 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)
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:
Open to discussion. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 16:17, 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. [1] <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:
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)
The category does not state 'Sex scandals are sex abuse cases' anymore.-- EchetusXe ( talk) 09:27, 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)
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). Aptery gial 08:52, 20 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, Aptery gial 12:25, 22 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! Aptery gial 11:33, 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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'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)
"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)
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)
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]
Mark83 ( talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Redraft:
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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...
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's how I see it:
D.M.N. ( talk) 17:58, 16 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)
Note: Sent back to GAN where it was before it was inappropriatly promoted. D.M.N. ( talk) 07:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, as I am now thoroughly confused, can someone please simply state:
Narson ( talk) 19:08, 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)
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:
Open to discussion. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 16:17, 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. [1] <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:
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)
The category does not state 'Sex scandals are sex abuse cases' anymore.-- EchetusXe ( talk) 09:27, 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)
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). Aptery gial 08:52, 20 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, Aptery gial 12:25, 22 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! Aptery gial 11:33, 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)
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)
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)