Jump to content

Talk:Max Mosley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMax Mosley has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 14, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 31, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 12, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 24, 2008Good article reassessmentNot listed
August 20, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 24, 2021, and May 24, 2021.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 13, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Original research removed

[edit]

I know this might be a controversial move, but I am removing some original research from the article, and rewriting slightly to use reliable sourcing. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not really allow us as editors to create our own material, we need to find good sources that already do this and then summarise those sources. At times this is of course tricky. Now, before removing I did search for sources for the claim removed (which is verifiable, please note), but could not find any. -84user (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After searching, I found that webpronews does mention the specific website hosting the video but without linking to it. As far as I can see, wikipedia policy appears to disallow linking to illegal material, see [1]. -84user (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudicial section heading

[edit]

The subject heading "Sex acts with prostitutes controversy" is problematic for a number of issues. In the first instance, whatever happened between Mosley and the women in question, it was not illegal. The issue is about the subject's privacy, not a prurient interest in his sexual activities. Secondly, the section covers the wider issue of privacy from press intrusion - including phone-hacking - so the title should reflect this, and I am therefore amending it. Nick Cooper (talk)

In the docu "The rise of the Murdoch Dynasty" Mosley says that the women were not 'whores' as the article had in its headline. They were, now I cannot remember his exact words, but something like upstanding members of society. He made it very clear that what was done, was nobody elses business and not illegal - but the fabrication of a NAZI context was the real scandal.
I find it astonishing that in 2018 a pamphlet of 1960 is held against Mosley. 68 years, no person is the same after such a time. And who digs in 68 year old pamphlet archives unless it's a campaign and witch hunt to damage the person? 2001:8003:A070:7F00:D853:ADDC:FB4B:FB9B (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CORRECTION: 1960 to 2018 is 58 years (not 68). My bad - sorry. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:C18A:F335:E865:C34 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the leaflets was not as simple as being held against Mosley over actions in a 1961 by-election campaign. The leaflets were presented by Associated Newspapers to the Crown Prosecution Service for them to examine over statements Mosley had made during his 2008 libel case against the News of the World. In the end, nothing happened. It is discussed here. --ServeDotty (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More recent photo for information box?

[edit]

The article has a picture of the subject from 1969. Given that this is a live person would it not be appropriate to put a more recent photo in the information box? 87.81.246.177 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Max Mosley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Max Mosley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Max Mosley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family and early life

[edit]

The first three sentences under the heading 'Family and early life' are really about his father rather than the subject Max Mosley. Whilst his father's reputation has certainly coloured Max Mosley's life we don't need that much detail because on a cursory reading one could very well be mistaken for thinking it was Max Mosley that the article is referring to. We simply don't need to know that Oswald's first wife died, that info is on Oswald's page. Motion to cut first two sentences and begin with the words 'Max was born...' Hmcst1 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree irrelevance of earlier wives and who was at the wedding (even if it is rather eyebrow-raising) - but surely his father's career is relevant. Max worked for his father's party when very young, so surely this is the context for what comes later? Partially reverting on this basis. 4u1e (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His father's career is covered elsewhere in the article, as it should be. Your revert brings back the same problem that I have highlighted , that the reader could mistake Oswald for Max. The subject of the two sentences you've inserted are Max, indeed the second sentence compounds this by using the pronoun 'he'. The reader could well read this and think that Max Mosley was a fascist. It is poor style. This is a biography of a living person governed by WP:ALIVE. You've provided no citations and as it's likely to be challenged WP:ALIVE says I should revert it immediately. I've allowed two weeks for you to engage on the Talk Page you have not reciprocated . What is your source for 'Max worked for his father's party when very young' ? Hmcst1 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC) This is an article about Max who is notable in his own right. But more care needs to be taken not to make this about his controversial family background. Clearly that background was at it's most stark during his early life, as it would be with any of us but there are other things I could point to that dwell on irrelevance and make this about his family. For example his brother's attitude to his school.Hmcst1 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC) I also should point out that the issue I was highlighting was not relevance or irrelevance. It was essentially style, and how poor style is confusing. The way you've written this the section head is about one person (Max) but the opening sentences are about Oswald. Those opening sentences are the most important , they lead. The perceptive reader will realise it has been poorly written and read no further, the less perceptive reader will mistake Oswald for Max. Stay on topic that's all I'm asking. This can be rewritten in such a way to put that info in but keep the subject on Max. Hmcst1 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but poor style can be fixed. At this distance I can't remember whether those are originally my words (possible) or have been group-edited into an unclear form. I'll have a stab at improving them in any case. I agree that his brother's attitude to school is irrelevant - there used to be a (referenced) comment in there on the pair's 'wildness' (the word use in the source) at that time, which seems more relevant. 4u1e (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. I admit the timing is awkward, but it's a genuine coincidence that I logged back into Wikipedia the same afternoon you made the edit. I agree you gave plenty of notice. Please be reassured that I wasn't failing to engage, I'm just not on Wiki all that often any more. 4u1e (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
If you have time, would you mind casting your eye over this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Mosley&oldid=252322580 , which is from around the time it was originally classed as a good article. The subject of the first two paras at that time was really Max's parents, and it seems clear to me - it may not to you. I wouldn't usually expect to see so much on the parents, but this is a pretty unusual family and these appear to have been formative experiences. As I said above, I'm for the reference to the wedding to go.What do you think? 4u1e (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've looked over that and I think it falls by much the same problem , that is leading on another person who is not the subject. But , I think we are agreed this is solvable. I suggest we lose the opening sentences, begin with Max. Then look at those opening sentences and see if we can squeeze that info in elsewhere preferably without making Oswald or Diana the subject. A section head has to lead on Max otherwise it will confuse. So here's what is being moved around "Sir Oswald Mosley was a Labour minister, and a Member of Parliament for both the Conservative and Labour parties in the 1920s. By the 1930s, he had left mainstream politics and become the leader of the British Union of Fascists (BUF). His first wife died in 1933 and in 1936 Sir Oswald married Diana Mitford in a ceremony in Germany attended by Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler. Their first son," This can mostly be put in to the last paragraph of the opening section. Hmcst1 (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Also the revision you've showed me has Max as the eldest son and the later revision has Max as the youngest son in the last paragraph of the opening section. I'm not sure myself which is correctHmcst1 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Max is the younger of Diana's two sons, so the earlier paragraph is wrong. I can fix that one easily enough. Let's discuss the mention of Sir Oswald and Diana a bit more, though: Max's early childhood is odd because his parents were famous, reviled (although revered by a few) and locked up while he was still a very young child. These were significant factors in his early development. I believe it's normal in a biographical article to start with a potted history of the 'relevant' elements of parents' lives and in this case, it's so integral to his early childhood I can't really see how to move it to the end. I'll happily go and look at the relevant wikiprojects/guidance on this point. 4u1e (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look around and all of the four most recently promoted High Importance Biography FAs (Nelson Mandela, Vladimir Lenin, Vincent van Gogh and Walt Disney start the main article with by explaining in greater or lesser detail the family history, who the parents were, what they did and the general family context (Strictly, VvG starts by explaining what the main source of info on the subject is, which isn't especially relevant here). The material is not all written such that the subject of the article is the subject of each sentence or paragraph. There's nothing specific on this in WP:MOSBIO, but it does say "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order." On that basis, I think the general structure in the current Max Mosley article is correct. I suggest I re-write it, making the first sentence a statement of his time and place of birth, which seems to be standard in the FA articles and should make things clearer, and taking care after that to be clear which Mosley we're talking about. 4u1e (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 4u1e (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the opening passage of the "Family and early life" before becoming aware it had been an issue here. Although his mother is mentioned later on in the earlier version at the time of her imprisonment in 1940, that arrangement does not allow her status as a Mitford sister to be mentioned, except as a possible diversion. Max's sibling, all older than him, in earlier versions were mentioned after his own marriage and the birth of his children, the second being born as late as 1972. The situation was best described as a jumble. To resolve the issue of an extended preliminary, those of his siblings who do not have a Wikipedia article were removed. I opted to mention all of his father's history, the BUF was mentioned before at the beginning of the section after his father's name, to reduce the emphasis on this factor. It is possible to argue that including almost all of Sir Oswald Mosley's pre-1940 political connections is an indulgence, like including the name of his first wife, but Max Mosley has echoed his father's history as the article implies. Philip Cross (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Max Mosley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Max Mosley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sons

[edit]

I've noticed that this is yet another Wikipedia entry that has a revert fascist who think they own the content... I guess a real fan of Max and Oswald. Screw you!

Max Mosley sons are named Alexander (Decd.) and Patrick. In Max Mosley's will, he donated £12,000,000 to various Oxford University Colleges from the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust set up in memory of his son who died of a Heroin overdose. The name of his son(s) are relevant considering this (controversially) accepted donation, in these days of toxic Cancel Culture of everything remotely colonial. Shame people are more concerned about cancelling doners from 100 and 200 years ago, but are happy to accept blood money today. Guess the Woke too have their price when it comes to £12 (million) pieces of silver, are Wikipedia reverter a-holes the same? This is the reason why I wil never EVER make a donation to this PEOPLES' encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.218.80 (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any sense. The names of his sons are not in the infobox (common practice unless one of them is independently notable, see David Beckham as an example - he has four children, but only the ones who are independently notable are named) but Mosley's sons are named in the "personal life" section and suddenly we are fascist? This also isn't blood money and I don't follow how this is remotely controversial. Please explain there glaring oversights in your arguement. SSSB (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Max_Mosley&oldid=1237505611"