Talk:Max Mosley/Archive 1

Size

I feel that this article is too small for GA, need a lead and headings, and a major expansion,

A secton should be given to his Ferrari Bias and rule changing to aid their victory

he might be bias towards Ferrari but he doesn't do anything for it, its the Stewards and Mosley hasn't been entierly Ferrari Biased look at what happen at Jerez 97(schumi was DQed) austria 02(fined Ferrari 1 mil) and Monaco 06(where schumi wasn't sent to the back)

I have just added a little bit about the nick-name fans give him, hope it's alright.

Conservative MP to Labor, WHAT NEXT???

Picture Added

I have added the picture of Max Mosley as required --Adeelbutt88 ^talk 18:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion of this picture at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Max_mosley.jpg. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Max Mosley

Max Mosley has a lot of critics from the within formula one, the teams, the fans and the formula one press all questions his decisions. He is constaintly critisised for his strange policys, seemingly biased attitudes and is known as 'Mad Max' within Formula One and yet any edits along these lines are removed from the artical becasue they are unsourced. I think that some sensible edits are required in this artical to reflect some of the critisims that are made againest him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.129.161 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At the time of writing there is a highly questionable comment which attempts to correlate Mosley's Union Movement candidacy with his belief that Lewis Hamilton winning his maiden F1 championship would be bad for the sport. The comment "It should be noted that the Union Movement of which Max Mosley was a candiate called for assisted repatriation of immigrants with scare stories regarding the criminality and sexual deviance of blacks." deliberately attempts to lead the reader by the nose to the conclusion that Max Mosley is a black hating bigot.

Whilst I'm certainly no fan of Max Mosley's FIA presidency, I do not think such blatant attempts to slander the man are either helpful or necessary. We're not writing a primary school guide for how to spot racists here. If readers wish to come to that conclusion, they should be free to do so based on the evidence; rather than having deliberately leading comments try to spell out a particular and not necessarily correct Point of View.

We are here to present the facts and the truth, NOT the facts and the truth in a way that leads the reader to our Point of View. Therefore, I shall be editing out the comment GordonTG 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To user IP 62.173.86.208 I will spell it out for you again in the hope you will not continue to vandalise the page by undoing the edit. Incidentally, like most vandals you hide behind an IP instead of logging in properly.

You are attempting to make the assertion that the comment Max Mosley made about Lewis Hamilton was racially motivated. Prior patterns of behaviour may suggest that but the only one who can make statements of fact about Mosley's motivations is the man himself. Anything else is pure speculation on your part.

You clearly have an axe to grind, so why not do it on an F1 forum where you will have a more appreciative audience GordonTG 08:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

GordonTG making edits under an ip address is hardly hiding! From my IP address you know more about me than i know about you from your username! Ok so you don't know my first name but then you might not be called Gordon! Just because you don't agree with my edits and i don't agree with yours doesn't make me a vandal any more or less than you. Please try and assume good faith, I have edited this article in the past because I feel there is a need for some well sourced criticism in this article, for instance it is well known that max mosley is known throughout formula one and in the media as ‘mad max’ and yet whenever anyone adds this fact to this article it is edited out as 'vandalism'.

Having said that I understand what you say about leading people to conclusions and I don't want to get into an edit war, so I won't be reinserting the paragraph back but I do feel that the article should include some reference to the fact that Moxsley represented a party that believed in the assisted repatriation of black people because that is a fact not a point of view, I don't think it’s for wikipedia to protect max mosley from conclusions that people might draw from his beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.86.208 (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Ironically enough, the 'evidence of bias' pseudo-section at the end (I believe written by Mr. 58.107.10.191) is pretty biased in itself. I'm no fan of the guy (quite the opposite, I think he's patronising and self-righteous), but this article will not get any respect for being written by vigilates determined to 'prove' his apparent red-leaning status. By all means it can impartially state the allegations of bias and cite references for (and against) these. Remember as well folks that many decisions are taken by stewards, not by him personally. JimmyK 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

British Union of Fascists?

Is this part true?

"son of Sir Oswald Mosley, former leader of the British Union of Fascists,"

The Union his father was associated with is called something different a little further along in the article.

I don't know, I was just reading and thought that a little odd, especially after the discrepancy later in the article.

I'm just asking for a clarification. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockthing (talk • contribs) 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No mistake, it's absolutely true. Sir Oswald Mosley was head of the British Union of Fascists before and during World War II. After the war, he started up another far-right party with the same flag but a different name, the Union Movement, for which Max worked for a while, and almost stood as an election candidate in the early Sixties. I could start speculating at this point as to why he's apparently not terribly pleased at Lewis Hamilton doing well this year, but will refrain from doing so... 90.201.136.179 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV

I've removed the following fragment "although it should be no surprise that the son of the black-shirt leader should be unhappy about the success of a non-white English driver" in reference to Lewis Hamilton. Although there is a citation to this it offers nothing to support the fragment, just the factual statement that Lewis may be a negative (his stated reason is because he would get a "Schumacher effect" if he kept winning). Per Wikipedia's BIO policy we have to be certain that we source negative statements impeccably, and this appears to be one editors opinion. BHC 05:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree max mosley, was a election agent for the far right Union Movement and stood for them himself, at no time has he publicly denounced his fathers views or clarifed his own views so it is fair to assume that they remain the same as when he stood as a candidate for a Fascist party. I think the statment stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.195.210 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Early fascist tendencies

I posted these edits originally in September - nb each one carefully sourced- but Kl4m chose to remove them erroneously asvandalism. After I protested to him and pointed out that every edit was carefully sourced with citations, K14m put them onto a "Wikiproject" page and asked for someone to go through them. After six weeks, no-one had done so, and I sent a message to K14m asking if this was a genuine wish to review or just an attempt to censor. I received the following message from K14m:

  I don't have the time or the access to sources to review this. If wikiproject Facism didn't respond just put the material back. Make a mention on the talk page that it should be reviewed and it will be alright. -- Kl4m T C 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have therefore done just that. Please guys, take it seriously this time. You'll find it's all well-sourced, in most cases on the internet. -- Duncan Berger 19:51, 5 November 2007

I've deleted one bit that was a direct copy from the source - provided it's from a reliable source (I'd check whether it's a self-published work if I were you) then it can go back in if re-written to avoid copyright issues. I'd have a look at WP:REF for some guidance on how to format references as well. Cheers. 4u1e 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

--Serp91 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over changes on 19 November 2007

I'm not especially into one side of the argument or the other, but having had some involvement with previous additions to this page, I thought it might be helpful to discuss the reasons for competing versions of the page proposed by Duncan Berger and user:86.206.75.50.

Duncan added the following paras, since removed by 86.206.75.50:

"Mosley was an election agent for his father's post-war party, the Union Movement, which used racial scaremongering in making immigration its core issue.

Former neo-nazi Trevor Grundy described in his memoirs how he and Max Mosley helped the latter's father to stir up racial tension in the run-up to and during the 1959 General Election campaign, when Mosley sr. stood in Notting Hill. Grundy alleged that Max Mosley, with his brother Alex, canvassed among local Teddy Boys, posed for the Daily Mirror as upper-class "Teds" and organised fascist skiffle gigs. Grundy also wrote that he and Max Mosley spread the fascist graffiti Keep Britain White. [1] "

Both appear to be referenced, and while both are negative, if true they seem relevant to a biography on Mosley. 86.206.75.50, could you comment in more detail on why these paragraphs are unsuitable? Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In the same section, Duncan has reverted 86.206.75.50's addition of:

"However an enquiry showed there was no connection and Mosley remained in the TA until starting racing in 1965."

To the sentence on Mosley's supposed involvement with the OAS. Duncan notes correctly that this last sentence is not supported by the reference used. 86.206.75.50, could you provide a source for this additional claim? Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on Mosley is a blatant attempt at using Wikipedia to attack a public, or semi-public figure by people who disagree with what he is doing in motorsport, particularly F1. The claims in the Grundy book are, at best, highly questionable and should not be quoted as fact. They relate to alleged incidents some 50 years ago and if they warrant so much space, the entire Mosley article should be expanded proportionately with items about his involvement with EuroNCAP, the European Parliament, the FIA Foundation, road safety, environmental issues, the "Berniegate" (million pound) saga and a number of modern controversial issues (tobacco advertising?) etc etc.

The allegation of involvement with the OAS is meaningless without the information that he was a member of the Territorial Army Parachute Regiment. The story is only complete with the information that, after a minor sensation in the press, he continued (after those in charge had looked into it) as a member of the TA until 1965. Had he had any contact with the OAS he would not have been allowed to stay in the TA. It is also very questionable whether the OAS was "neo-fascist". It was an organisation of French people with military connections who wanted to keep Algeria French. All this is documented in contemporary press reports. Unfortunately, when I put relevant information up, someone promptly deletes it.

It's all about whether you want Wiki to be a propaganda tool or a relevant, accurate and informative source. This is 86.206.75.50 but may not appear as such this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.130 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the Grundy quote because it is quite simply untrue and changed the reference to Union Movement policy based on what is actually said in Mosley's father's autobiography, the quoted source. I have also deleted the reference to Salford East as this is completely untrue. Mosley has never been to Salford, much less been active in politics there, and anyway could not have got involved because he was just starting at the Bar.

I have also altered the references to the atacks on Dennis and Stewart to reflect the facts. What is neeeded is a proper bio of Mosley, not a half-baked attack on him by those who dislike him and/or his father.

This is still 86.206.75.50 but with different IP.

Hi, thanks for responding. You are correct (in my opinion) regarding the issue of balance in the article - there's much more that could be said about Mosley's involvement with March Engineering, for example. If you can add relevant material, please do.

As far as truth goes, as I suggested before you probably need to take a look at the Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFIABILITY, in a nutshell it says: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. It is not enough to remove referenced material on a simple assertion that it is untrue. You need to find a source that says differently, or a source that says that the source used is unreliable, or find some way of casting doubt on the reliability of the source used. See WP:RS for details of what is considered a reliable source. I will replace the Grundy claims for now, pending evidence (not assertion) that they are not true or reliable.

You may find the policy WP:BLP of interest. You may find material there that supports your points about what is appropriate to put in this article.

Regarding the mention of the TA - fine, although your latest edits have left that out. The dispute was over your addition of an unreferenced claim that the matter had been investigated and found to be baseless. I will re-add the TA bit, which is covered in the source used. Regarding 'neo-fascist', those are the words used in the source (which I would agree is hardly the best source for information about 1960s French army politics!). Try to find other reliable sources to support your points. If you have access to contemporary reports then you can use those (see WP:REF for details of how to reference material included in Wikipedia. Contact me at my talk page if I can help.

The Salford East claim was unreferenced, so fair enough to delete it.

Although I think Mosley is cocking up F1 big style at present, I don't think I have a particular axe to grind regarding this biography. What I do have an interest in is avoiding edit wars over the content of this article - my comments above are intended to get discussion of this article onto a proper Wiki footing. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

86.206.75.50 your ip addresses seems to indicate that you come from Paris, (where the FIA is based) could you declare your intrests in the article? I too would like to see some relevent information added about Mosley's involvement with March Engineering. I agree the article needs additional relevent information adding to add balance but I don't think existing sourced material should be removed just becasue it could be said that it casts Max Mosley in a negative light. Tommy turrell (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm getting a bit entrenched now (and will revert no further today), but 212, you're still asserting that the Grundy material is unreliable, without giving any reasoned argument for your position. 4u1e (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is 86.206.75.50, also 212. Unfortunately my reasoned argument vanished because of competing edits and my lack of computer skills. I will try again. I am indeed French based. I am an acquaintance of Max Mosley. I would be glad to expand the article and will try to do so in the future including all references.

On the immediate issues. Grundy is not a RELIABLE published source. Mosley absolutely denies the allegations. He points out that it is impossible to cite references in support of a contention that you did not do something. At best, you can produce circumstantial evidence. Likewise the Army enquiry. If the Fleet Street tabloids (as happened) carry a story that a member of the TA is connected to an illegal foreign military organisation, it is inconceivable that the TA authorities would not immediately investigate and, if true throw the person concerned out. Mosley continued in the TA for years after that. It follows that he was cleared. Why not say so?

The place to attack Mosley is the blogs which exist for that purpose. Wikipedia should be a work of reference as its rules make clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.129 (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So you've spoken to Max Mosley and he says it isn't true? I understand that you are trying to help your friend but why should the cited material be removed just because Max Mosley denies that something is it true? You are making edits (which seem to be your POV) that have no references and removing statements that do have references, can you see why some of your edits are being undone? Tommy turrell (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

With defamatory statements, the onus in law is on the person making the allegation to prove it, not on the victim to disprove it. This is certainly the case in France and I believe also the case in the UK. Just because something appears in an obscure book does not mean it is true. If Mosley says it is not true you can hardly expect him to prove a negative. The impossibility of proving a negative is the reason for the onus of proof rule. If "Tommy turrell" et al are so bent on trying to discredit Mosley that they are ready to rely on contested allegations from 50 years ago, they should use the blogs, not Wikipedia.

I notice "Tommy turrell" has made no attempt to answer the point about the Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.66 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1. If you check the history of the article I have made four edits (Added sections, a revet, added details about his schooling and added a missing source for a bit about Jean Todt) I don't think any of them discredit Max Mosley therefore I don't understand why you accuse me of trying to dicredit him.

2. I have no reason to comment about the Army as I didn't add that to the article and it appears to be something that you were discussing with 4u1e who seems to agree with your point.

3. I have a single point to make regarding your edits (which you will find is all I have ever said to you on this talk page), if you remove referenced information and add unreferenced material which appears to be from your point of view then you can't really be surprised if it gets undone.

As I said before I'd be really be interested seeing more added in this article about Mosleys involvement with March and some of the other items like road safty which you mentioned. It might be helpful for you to sign up to wikipedia rather than making edits from several anonymous IP addresses.

Tommy turrell (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points. The English Wikipedia is hosted in the US, so American law is the relevant standard, not French or US. I suspect that doesn't make any difference to 212/86's point, however. While it is true that you can't (generally) prove a negative, that misses the point. We're reporting a claim made by a third party (Grundy) about Mosley. The legal point about it being up to the person making the claim to prove it applies to Mr Grundy, not to Wikipedia. Our responsibility is to accurately report what others have written. (See also WP:LEGAL, btw, not that anyone has made any legal threats, but if anyone did, it's the sort of thing that can get you banned from editing here).

Regarding Grundy, 212/86 is incorrect: Grundy himself is a reliable published source - the claims apparently appear in a book called Memoirs of a fascist childhood. The reference we have at present is a secondary source (if you count Grundy as a primary one) which refers to Grundy's book, so there is a valid argument that this secondary source may misrepresent the original. As the book is available for next to nothing on Amazon, I've ordered a copy, so we can check. If Grundy does indeed make the claims he is supposed to have done, then it is perfectly valid to repeat them here - provided we're clear that they're Grundy's story, which I believe the current wording does. 'Truth', I'm afraid, does not come into it - as I have pointed out before, verifiability is the issue. If it is verifiable that Grundy has said what he said, then we can report it here. I'll let you know what I find when the book arrives.

The only exception to that I can think of would be if there were a legal case against Grundy that had proved that the book was unreliable on this point, or possibly if the weight of other reports on this period massively outweighed Mr Grundy's version. I think it is unlikely that it's an area enough people have looked into for there to be such a weight of consensus. Equally if Mr Mosley had publicly refuted My Grundy's story anywhere, then we could (indeed must) report that as well. 212/86 - that may be something you can advise on. This talk page doesn't count, though! :)

Can I suggest a short term compromise? If 212/86 wants to remove the Grundy paragraph again, I'm happy to leave it out until I get hold of a copy of the book in which the claims are made. I can then verify what is said in the original source and we can act accordingly. Everyone happy with that? 4u1e (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, 212/86, Tommy's right: it would be a good idea to register on Wikipedia. One of the addresses you are using seems to have a history of minor vandalism here (see: here). That address appears to be shared by users of Vodaphone's 3G service, but while I'm sure the incidents weren't you personally, it doesn't look good. If you register, only edits you have actually made will be listed against your name, regardless of where you're editing from. 4u1e (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this all seems sensible Tommy turrell (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is 212/86. I have now registered as "serp 91". I never meant to get so involved but it's addictive.

The points you make are fair although anyone who publishes something (at least in France or the UK) is responsible for it. But as you say, the legalities are not the issue. It seems reasonable to publish a disputed defamatory claim provided it is made clear (i) that it is a claim and (ii) that the victim disputes the claim if this is indeed the case. Should I suggest to Mosley that he write to Wikipedia disputing these claims? Apparently he was unaware of these allegations and it is now too late to take any action. Finally (on Grundy) I think it difficult to justify that a book is ipso facto a reliable source but I want to study the Wiki rules before arguing this point. Your initiatve in obtaining the book is admirable as it may resolve the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serp91 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC) More generally, it is a pity that the article is not a more useful and informative source. For example it should deal with Mosley's strange early life (parents in prison etc), odd-ball education, club racing career, Jim Clark's last race, the way March revolutionised F1 in 1970, how Mosley and Ecclestone took over F1 in the 70s, the FOCA-FISA war, Enzo Ferrari's involvement, the FIA's conflict with The European Commission and Karel van Miert, the conflict with the major car companies, non-motor racing activities like EuroNCAP and the FIA Foundation, involvement in the Ecclestone million pound affair, dealings with Blair's Labour Party, the safety issues in F1, Senna's death, the tobacco controversy and many others. It's by no means all to Mosley's credit but he does have the French Legion d'Honneur and the Italian Order of Merit as well as similar from other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serp91 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to have a go at expanding the article in accord with the Wiki rules and subject to normal editing but would I not risk seeing it all deleted by refugees from the F1 blogs? Serp91 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to expand the facts regarding Mosley's long and interesting life, you'll certainly have my support in doing so. It will need to be warts and all, but the casually offensive stuff I agree we can do without. A certain amount of material on his own political views and background, especially in light of his father, is, I think, appropriate. Whether it has any bearing on current events is doubtful, but it's part of a full picture of the man.

Re Grundy, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that unless claims are known to be incorrect or dubious then it is reasonable that we repeat them here. I can ask for further advice on that. Anyway, let's see what the book actually says and we can proceed from there. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Welcome to Wikipedia! 4u1e (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure

I've bulked out the driving/constructor section a bit, with some refs. On the question of structure, although I can see why all the political stuff is lumped together in its own section, it does break the narrative flow a bit. What are the pros and cons of moving the stuff from his early life to before the racing section? 4u1e (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right and it would make sense to put the early political stuff under early life because, except for the mention of Consevative and Labour, this all pre-dates motor racing. Racing is probably the main reason why anyone would look Mosley up on Wiki. It would also make more sense chronologically. Then, much later, there is a second, entirely different political element which came when Mosley met David Ward circa 1992. At the time, Ward was John Smith's chief of staff but also a fellow motor sport enthusiast and even club racing and karting competitor. It was Ward who introduced Mosley to Smith. After Smith's death, Ward went to work for the FIA, running their Brussels office and making the organisation a major force in the EU. He introduced Mosley to Blair and many other top Labour politicians including Alan Donnelly, former leader of the Labour Group in the European Parliament and now, among other things, Mosley's representative at F1 races. The Blair introduction led to the Berniegate million pound controversy, the Downing Street meeting and the tobacco advertising row, all of which are highly relevant to modern F1. Ward now runs the FIA Foundation. I will try to put some of this together for the article. The problem is getting the references together - a lot of work! 212.183.136.193 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 212.183.136.193 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Serp91 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you could thread the later political stuff together and put it in (somewhere around the FIA section, I guess, although that bit seems a little confused to me at present!). What are you going to use as references? (Just curious!) There's a Joe Saward piece on the tobacco stuff here, if that's any help (he's no fan of Mosley at present, but that piece is from 1997). If not, the Times online catalogue can be helpful, if you have access). Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would very much like to see mention of Mosley's involvement (if it exists) with tobacco firms and/or tobacco advertising, is there any relevant information available? I am interested to know; as a smoker myself of a brand once the long time sponsors of the red and white McLarens. And sorry to deviate, but a lot of the F1 cars nowadays have boring paint jobs. The classic John Player Special black and gold Lotus, the Marlboro McLaren and even the more recent BAR and Jordan cars all had visual appeal. I can't help but wonder if any of these adverts had any influence on my smoking habits. Sorry to digress :o/ There's a good political tie in here somewhere. As 4u1e linked above the article from grandprix.com, there's something in it that would enhance this article giving some flavour of Mosley's machinations or mastery of political and commercial interests. GordonTG (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Grundy stuff (Memoirs of a fascist childhood)

OK, I have the book now. I'll try and quote the relevant bits here, but will have to summarise in places, so you'll have to trust that I'm doing so accurately! (If you think something important may have been missed, then please ask!). All quotes copyright Trevor Grundy. Page numbers from 1999 Arrows paperback edition.

• Grundy's first reported phone conversation with Max in 1957 (Max's brother Alex had phoned Grundy after Grundy had an 'audience' with Oswald Mosley after giving a speech for the Union Movement at Trafalgar Square): After affecting an East End accent and discussing the merits of Bill Haley and Elvis Presley, Max is reported to add in his 'normal' voice : "You know Trevor, they are five million teenagers in this country, with an annual purchasing power of of £800 million. Could you tell me, only as a rough estimate, of course, how many have joined your branch of the Youth Movement and what percentage of their income is spent on Union Movement product?" The whole conversation is presented as a joke by Max, possibly at the expense of Grundy. (p.124)
• After Grundy shows Max and Alexander Mosley copies of his youth column for Union (the Union Movement magazine), he reports that they "made it clear they would like to leave the room to be sick". My interpretation only, but the sense is not that they are horrified as such by Grundy's views, but are humorously showing disdain for his earnestness about it all.(p.129)
• Max's idea for a party (at around the same time): "'The trouble is,' Max said one day in my room, 'Union Movement is made up of a bunch of clowns who aren't serious about achieving power. They just want to hang around pubs and talk about the old days and how good they were at beating up Jews. When I pointed out to you on the phone that there were five million teenagers in Britain, Trevor, I was talking about the vast potential political power of the young. Apart from their spending power, they could change the face of Britain if they were mobilised by some political force. But where's the appeal [of the older members of the party with their connections to Hitler]' [...] 'The Teddy Boys would be a better bet than the lot we've got.' [...] When I told him that the lower and upper sixths of Archbishop Tenison's had formed a skiffle group [...] and that I had been asked to play in it [...], Max's eyes opened wide. He said that he could organise a massive party at an empty flat he knew in Victoria. [...] Having a series of parties, he said, would be the right way to get in with lively, ordinary, normal young people, girls as well as boys, and attract them to the Movement by showing that we were like them and didn't go on about Hitler and Mussolini, Franco and British Fascism all the time." (pp.129-130)
• At the party itself, Grundy reports that he saw Max dancing with a girl: "I watched him talk and whisper and had the distinct impression he wasn't telling her about his relationship to Sir Oswald, or trying to explain why young people should join the Youth League and help to sell Union papers at Earl's Court Underground Station on a Saturday night." Grundy makes no other mention of Union Movement activity at that party. A week later, at what Grundy calls "the last party", Grundy reports being told by his friend Timothy Adams that Adams will be the new leader of the Youth movement - Adams was apparently introduced to Alexander Mosley by Grundy. (pp.143-146)
• At the time of Oswald Mosley's campaign for the Notting Hill seat for the 1959 General Election: "I often saw Max Mosley and his girlfriend Jean in the Notting Hill Gate area, canvassing, talking to Teds and chatting to reporters, but we no longer spoke. Max was about to go up to Oxford to read physics and now moved in loftier circles. One day I saw a picture of him with Alexander in the Daily Mirror. They were dressed in Teddy Boy suits and looked aggressive in an upper-class sort of way. 'We've come down here to help,' Max was quoted as saying. (p.177)

And that's about it. Throughout Grundy presents himself as much closer to Alexander than to Max, so there's not that much about our man.

I would summarise what is reported in the book as follows: The teenage Mosley, along with his older brother Alexander, had some involvement with his father's Union Movement. Mosley was, at the least, interested in how the Union Movement might be more successful. In 1957 he organised a couple of parties in an empty flat: Grundy reports that the original inspiration was the need to attract younger members of both sexes to the Union Movement, although he does not report any political discussion taking place at either of these parties. Mosley and his brother Alexander helped during his father's 1959 Notting Hill Gate general election campaign. Much of Oswald's support in this campaign came from Teddy Boys, Max and Alexander were pictured dressed in Ted style in the Daily Mail.

By comparison, here is the Grundy text removed from the article:

Former neo-nazi Trevor Grundy described in his memoirs how he and Max Mosley helped the latter's father to stir up racial tension in the run-up to and during the 1959 General Election campaign, when Mosley sr. stood in Notting Hill. Grundy alleged that Max Mosley, with his brother Alex, canvassed among local Teddy Boys, posed for the Daily Mirror as upper-class "Teds" and organised fascist skiffle gigs. Grundy also wrote that he and Max Mosley spread the fascist graffiti Keep Britain White.

Which we can now see is a largely inaccurate representation of what the source material says. Max is only mentioned as canvassing in the run-up to the election. The mention of dressing in Teddy Boy style for the Mail is accurate, but although Max has suggested earlier that it would be useful to harness the Teddy Boy movement, and Teds are reported to be heavily involved in Oswald's campaign, the connection between Max and Teds in that campaign is massively overstated from the source. The 'fascist skiffle gigs' (i.e two parties) were some time previously, not during the election campaign. Grundy reports no fascist activities at the parties, he believes that they were to recruit for the Union Movement, but hints that Mosley may have had, ahem, other intentions. The 'Keep Britain White' slogan is mentioned only as being used by a speaker called Don Lucas at Union Movement speeches. It is not mentioned as graffiti and is in no way connected with either of the Mosley brothers in this book, that I can see.

Sorry for going on at length, but accurate use of sources is something I feel strongly about! I think we can reinstate something based on this, but it will read very differently to the previous version. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'll confess to not having checked Duncan's entry closely enough earlier either - his paragraph (the disputed one) overstates the case compared to the Tom Vague 'Getting it straight in Notting Hill Gate' source, which in itself misrepresents Grundy's book quite seriously. Vague left himself a little more legal wriggle room in his version, but it's still wrong. 4u1e (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See what you think of the alternative version I've put up. I've left out the Teddy Boy angle at present. While there's potentially a link from Max's (reported!) suggestion that the Teddy Boy's would be a better lot that we've got in 1957, to Ted involvement in the 1958 Notting Hill riots, to Ted support for Oswald Mosley in his 1959 election campaign in Notting Hill Gate and finally to Max and Alexander being photographed dressed in Ted style during that campaign, Trevor Grundy hasn't chosen to join up those dots. Tom Vague did, but his account is obviously unreliable on other grounds. Me making the link would constitute original research and without it I can see little point in mentioning the Ted photo in the article. 4u1e (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work, I think that's cleared that up to everyones satisfaction. I think the Grundy refrence should be left in to avoid mis quotes of this book again.

By the way there is a biog of max mosley on imbd http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1694500/bio which mentions a Jean as his spouce, probably the same Jean Grundy mentions at the party. But probably not relevent to article.Tommy turrell (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done. That really proves your point about sources. You have set a standard for further improvements to the article which we must try to meet. Serp91 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

4u1e, you have done excellent work here in researching this matter. Your edits have greatly improved the article from the former non-npov diatribe version. GordonTG (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, guys. The only thing which is perhaps missing from that bit is a mention of the basis on which Oswald Mosley campaigned in 1959. From Grundy's account, part of Mosley's platform was a racist 'send them home' message, rather than the much more benign 'European Unity' tag the party operated under. (I use the term racist advisedly here, because of the language Oswald Mosley is reported to have used, not simply because he was talking about immigrant issues). I don't really want to use Grundy as a source for that, though: a neutral political commentator would be better. Giving this context would be a more negative point against Max, but I think it would be relevant; he was (just) old enough to choose whether to support his father or not. From what I've been reading, his (much older) half brother Nicholas Mosley strongly opposed his father, and Alexander was having doubts. I've so far avoided using the labels 'rascist', 'fascist' and 'neo-nazi' - if (and only if) I find that such terms are the standard political terminology for Oswald Mosley's post-war activities, then I may re-introduce them in relation to the Notting Hill Gate campaign. Does that seem fair as context? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(BTW, if I were Max Mosley, I would, in some ways, be finding this all highly amusing. You make a throwaway joke to some guy on the phone in 1957, and 50 years later its inner meaning is being earnestly discussed on the internet. :D) 4u1e (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: There is in fact mention of graffiti in the book, but it's much earlier on and is not the KBW ('Keep Britain White') referred to by Vague, but the circle and flash symbol shared by Oswald Mosley's pre-war BUF and the post-war UM. Serp91 - if Mosley denies that it happened in this revised form, it probably would be best if he wrote to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

be wary of a slander campaign

A lot of Brits are upset that Max Mosely is not biased in the favor of British teams/drivers and have been conducting a variation of a witch hunt. No doubt such a situation will spill out here as it always seem to be a British perspective given to everything in the formula one articles. Fair/unbiased editor, be on your toes.66.190.29.150 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit unnecessary, everyone has a POV, judging by the history of your contributions (i.e. your edits to the Michael Schumacher and Lewis Hamilton) you seem to have your own POV and agenda.193.35.129.169 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to a matter of perception. If this seems to be from a British perspective, it might be worth remembering that Mosley is a Briton. But heck, what do I know, I'm British too so perhaps I'm biased as well ;) GordonTG (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination comment

Re: Good Article nomination--

• I'd like to the see the references better outlined. What is Dorril (2006), what is Grundy (1999), what is Lawrence (1989)? I assume these are books, but I'd like to see them better referenced. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

D'oh - foot in mouth. They are books (see section on its own). Would like to see these books better referenced in the actual <ref> tags. Guroadrunner (talk)

I've tried something not sure that it works though. The issue seems to be how to have the cite templates without using them in every place that needs to be a citation. Ideally the article should also use the web cite template as well but is a lot of work right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See Nancy Reagan which is a featured article, I guess that's how it should be done.Tommy turrell (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's lots of different ways of doing this - I favour doing it this way and not having the full cite templates buried in the text, because it becomes a bit of a nightmare to read the raw text if you do (Go and look at the source for Michael Schumacher if you don't believe me! :D). It's certainly an acceptable approach, but if anyone wants to propose an alternative, I'm always happy to talk! 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that one of the Harvard cite templates allows a further link from the footnote to the reference - see ref 4 of Brabham for an example. I can't see the point myself, but.... 4u1e (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a version dated 15:23, 15 January 2008 where i tried to achieve something similar.

Concorde Agreement

This Article is looking really good now; just one thing I worry about is the Concorde Agreement which doesn't really fit into any one section because it is something that has evolved over 20 or so years. I feel that it does deserve its own section but also needs referring to in the FIA and FOCA sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky, isn't it. It's obviously a periodic thing - Mosley's been involved with it in 1981, 1997, 2001 and 2007 (from memory, it doesn't run to a regular schedule!). We can group it all together in one place, but then that cuts the heart out of the story of what he was doing in the early 1980s. Or we can split it up, showing his involvement in different roles at different points, but then, as you say, if you just want to find out about the Concorde agreement, it's hard to do so.

I tend towards the former, because we are, in a sense, telling a story here. And it's the story of Max, not the story of the Concorde Agreement. What's your preference? (And anyone else that's reading, too!) 4u1e (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with will the former i.e all in one place. We can briefly mention the Concorde Agreement and use see also links?Tommy turrell (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - again, two options: Cover it in full in its own section at first appearance in the FOCA section. (i.e. 1982 FISA-FOCA war) and include some flash forwards along the lines of 'Later, when he held the presidency of the FIA, Mosley found himself negotiating new versions of the agreement from the opposite side of the table to the teams. In 1997, 2001 and 2007 he outmanoeuvred the teams by.....'. Alternatively, we mention it only briefly at the first occurrence and cover it in full somewhere in the FIA section. Despite my recent edits, I'm tending towards the latter again here. Your views? 4u1e (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the latter, for such and important part of formula one the Concorde Agreement does justify some detail, without it formula one would have wouldn’t have the commercial aspect that it has today. There is much of interest in the Concorde Agreement of which little is known - for instance Mosley conspiracy theorists might be interested to learn that Ferrari earn more than any other team due to the Concorde Agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mosley’s interest in becoming a conservative MP

This is true but no citation can be found, so i have commented it out for now. I know it was mentioned in July's 2004 F1 Racing magazine but i don't have a copy so i can't check. I know that it didn't happen because of John Smith's.

John Smith was the labour leader 62.173.86.208 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The main concerns are the length of the lede, some prose flow concerns, and some source citations concerns.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Mainly short choppy sentences. Also consider changing the citations to two columns

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I've listed a few places that need source citations, as well as some more where I would like them

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Details:

• Lede is very short for an article this size. WP:LEDE suggests three to four full paragraphs for an article over 30,000 characters. I'd suggest using information from the early politics (which isn't covered at all), more details on the March engineering, FOCA, FIA initiatives, road safety, retirement, and criticism. Lede is now 440 words (previously 146), all of which is info from the body, I didn't work anything in from road safety Tommy turrell (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Annoying as it is, all quotations must be directly cited, like "quotation"<footnote> if the are in the middle of a sentence, even if the sentence has a citation at the end of the sentence. WP:CITE#When quoting someone. I'll note any occurances below as "quotation needs direct citation"
• Early life. I know it's obvious, but it might be better to say "then Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill". Never underestimate the power of the masses to not know anything about history. (Too true! :D 4u1e (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
• Same section, third paragraph, the last sentence might work better as "Nancy Mitford, in letters to Evelyn Waugh, recalled Sir Oswald..."
• Personal life section is way too short for the level of heading. I'd combine it with the Early life section above for "Family and education" or something similar.
• Early politics section, first paragraph, second sentence, the quotation needs direct citation.
• Same section, the last two paragraphs are short and give the prose a choppy feel. Consider expanding them or combining them together. removed short para on Indian Workers' Association as it does't seem to have context and added more to Territorial Army.Tommy turrell (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Racing career section, the last parts of the last paragraph don't have a source citation. While they might not be challenged, it's probably better to have one if you can find it.
• March engineering section, there are some statements that dont' have source citations. Some will need sourcing, especially the one in the fifth paragraph, where Mike Lawrence is paraphrased; the one in sixth paragraph where the good relationship is cited as a reason for someone to do an exclusive relationship; and the last as the very last sentence in the section, which reads as opinion and needs a citation to avoid WP:OR Not quite sure about the last bit - I've changed it to the more factual '5 of 11 championships' - but haven't yet got a direct ref for it. Better? 4u1e (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Same section, fourth paragraph, third sentence has a quotation that needs direct citation.
• Same section, fifth paragraph, second paragraph, do you mean "short term deals" rather than "short team deals"?
• Formula One Constructors Association section, second paragraph, last sentence wouldn't be hurt by a source citation.
• Same section, second paragraph, last two sentences need a source citation, since it is alleging something against the French Italian and German manufactuers.
• Same section, fourth paragraph, last sentences could use a citation, although it's not required.

* Same section, last paragraph is way too short and should be expanded or merged into another paragraph. * FISA presidency section, wouldn't be hurt by more source citations. The one that requires one is the "Balestre was widely reported..." sentence. I'm not clear if footnote 35 covers this or not, since they are so separated.

• Same section, consider changing the first sentence to "Mosley returned to Formula One in 1986.." just to better tie in to the previous section.
• FIA section, the three paragraphs are very short and choppy. Consider expanding or merging.

* Same section, not being a racing fan, I don't know why everyone would attend Senna's funeral and not attend Ratzenberger. Might explain that, which would help pad out the sentence also. * Same section, Initiatives subsection, the two paragraphs are short and choppy. Also, I'm unclear on what an engine freeze entails? Consider merging and/or expanding these paragraphs, perhaps by adding in some details on what an engine freeze is.

• Same section, Criticism section, The first paragraph is one very long run on sentence. Consider breaking it up.
• Later politics section is too short for that level of heading. Consider expanding or finding another place to merge it. I have merged Politics section for the time being, Mosley was involoved in party politics later in his life but it is difficult to find ref's for it. In the mean time can it be merged? Tommy turrell (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

* You might change Citations to two columns to make things easier on the reader.

• I've added Wikipedia:Persondata to the article, please consider using it in the future. Also {{DEFAULTSORT}}

The big concerns are some prose flow issues with short choppy sentences, some quotations needing direct citation, some statements that need sources, and serious expansion on the lede.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

4u1e's responses

All good stuff - I'll get on with what I can. One early (negative!) response - sorry. :) I'll see how it looks, but I suspect that I'm not going to add a footnote immediately after a quotation where that sentence is already ref'd. My opinion is that it adds nothing to verifiability and makes the article look worse. It's not something I want to get into a fight over, though: if we get to a stage where that is the article's only remaining fault you'll have to take a view on whether to pass or fail on that one point. Cheers and thanks again for all your effort in reviewing the article, I do it myself sometimes and do appreciate the amount of work involved. 4u1e (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done a quick sweep and fixed some of the easier stuff. Still some fiddling to do though. And I'm afraid I still don't agree about the quotations :( 4u1e (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On the problem quotation, consider switching the location of the quotation in the sentence, making it last. Maybe "Trevor Grundy, a central figure in the Union's Youth Movement, writes of the 16-year-old Mosley painting the 'circle and flash' symbol on walls in London on the night of the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary (4 November 1956), describing him as "a tall slim boy, with golden hair...He had a lovely face."<footnote> Would that work? It'd keep you happy, me happy, and the wikigods happy too!Ealdgyth | Talk 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha - compromise! My kind of editor ;-) I'll have a look, but it probably won't be tonight now. That phrase is a bit awkwardly placed anyway. 4u1e (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - done. There was only one other anyway. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking in, what's the status on the changes? Ealdgyth | Talk 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, (you may disagree!) we've done all the essential stuff. I don't disagree with some of your other 'optional' requests for citation, but I don't have refs for them to hand (which is probably why they were citation-less in the first place). If there's anything left that you're not content with, could you indicate it, and I/we will attempt a quick fix? Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I agree about the citations, you got the necessary ones. Passing it now!Ealdgyth | Talk 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple of floating comments looking for a home

• Mosley's stance on McLaren and other decisions have led to him being nicknamed 'Mad Max' by The Scotsman newspaper.

I know why this has made it in here, it's becasue Mosley is known through out Formula One as 'Mad Max' if there were multiple references then it might be more justifiable to state that. Tommy turrell (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And it would go somewhere in 'criticism'. It's always difficult to reference anything like 'widely known as', because you either need multiple references or one ref that actually says 'X is widely known as Y'. I don't imagine everyone in F1 refers to him by that epiphet, although the one person I do know who works in the sport is not a fan! It sounds like more of a fan/tabloid thing to me. 4u1e (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mosley has been quoted as saying that "There's a big problem with F1. You can make it absolutely fair, but then it will usually be dull."

I think this gives an insight into Mosley character, I think that it shows that he acknowledges that there are some things which people will find unfair in Formula One, however they are necessary for the commercial aspect. I think it also gives a little bit of balance to the criticism section.Tommy turrell (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its also intresting to contrast it with his statment "What happened to Ayrton Senna two years ago in Japan, disgusted me, [...]That is when I realised that Fisa was not a fair organisation." Tommy turrell (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an interesting contrast, but it's really hard to make use of it without knowing what he was actually talking about at the time. I've tried googling it, but only came up with this page and the source used! 4u1e (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These were both hanging around at the end of a section. Both are ref'd but have no context and just at the minute I can't think where they can be usefully integrated into the text. If anyone else can, please go ahead. However, please, please, please, stick to making legitimate, verifiable connections. The source for the 'problem with F1' quote, for example, does not link it to McLaren or Lewis Hamilton! ;-) 4u1e (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also added of the Indian Workers' Association as a floating comment looking for a home

• The archived papers of the Indian Workers' Association contain press cuttings of disputes surrounding invitations to Max Mosley to speak at Birmingham University in both 1963 (page 120) and 1964 (page 123), when his invitation was cancelled.

it could do with some context supported by ref's which to explain the relevence.Tommy turrell (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed ", describing him as "a tall slim boy, with golden hair...He had a lovely face" but it needs a home somewhere (possibly early life (which is getting messey!)). It's a quote from Tervor Grundy. Tommy turrell (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review by User:Royalbroil

4u1e has requested that I review the article:

1. Explain what Chevalier dans l’Ordre de la Légion d’Honneur means. Is is a knight-like honor in that organization?
2. Explain the word "works" in this context and throughout that section: "He reasoned that even without the works lead driver,"
3. The criticism section is very hard to follow. It jumps around a lot with little explanation of what the incidents mean. Particularly unclear is the "Schumacher effect". Royalbroil 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Correct, literally something like 'Knight of the Order of the Legion of Honour'. Will explain in text.
2. Good point.
3. Yeah, I'm not very happy with that section overall. It's the bit that's closest to the state of the article before we starting working on it. Will revise. Thanks for your time (and I will look at Kulwicki, promise!). 4u1e (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved Légion d’Honneur information out of lede, as lede was getting long and as 4u1e said in the past info in there should be a summary of the article, thought about putting it in Family and early life but it doesn’t fit really as there as no other personal information in there. I have also padded it up a little bit to explain a bit more fully what it is, the fifth class bit is a bit clumsy but I wanted to avoid saying that a Knight was the lowest class.Tommy turrell (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Barcelona

Need to find a home for Mosley's reaction to the abuse aimed at Lewis Hamilton, possibly using http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7237453.stm as a ref and maybe http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_3142347,00.html.

This is notable because it clarifies some of Mosley's views in light of his former involvement with the Union moment. A difficult section to write judging by some of the other comments on the talk page and the history of the article.Tommy turrell (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)