Talk:Max Mosley/Archive 3

Alan Donnelly
I also think that there should at least be one mention of Alan Donnelly, during 2008 his name came up several times in connection with Mosley, my understanding is he is now representing Mosley during race weekends.

I am not going to be bold and add in anything as I would like to be able to support any FA bid from a semi neutral stand point and as it stands I think it is looking good.Tommy turrell (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mention him on that basis alone - although perhaps we should mention the fact that Mosley had to be represented rather than appearing himself - but Donnelly's supporting role to Mosley goes further back than that. I'll have a look in Lovell's book, I think I saw something in there that might be relevant. 4u1e (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked through Lovell and there's no mention of Donnelly. Is that a good enough indicator that we don't need to mention him here either? 4u1e (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Justice Eady
Is there a better quote from Justice Eady? Currently it says "I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust" but that as a summing up the verdict seems a bit at odds with the news of the worlds allegation that Mosley took part in a Nazi themed orgy.

I guess what I am asking is does the ruling state that is wasn't a Nazi orgy or does it only go as far as stating that is was an invasion of privacy?Tommy turrell (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The NOTW made claims that the acts mocked the Nazi victims ("The medical inspection is described as “mocking the humiliating way Jews were treated by SS death camp guards in WWII”"), so I'd say the quote is still relevant. However, he does say that the claims of Nazi role-playing alone were also untrue, e.g.: "I have decided that the only possible element of public interest here, in the different context of privacy, would be if the Nazi role-play and mockery of Holocaust victims were true. I have held that they were not." Mdwh (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry to James II and Charles II

 * 1) Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester mistress to James II of England
 * 2) had daughter Lady Catherine Darnley m. James Annesley, 3rd Earl of Anglesey
 * 3) They had a daughter, Lady Catherine Annesley, who married William Phipps
 * 4) had son Constantine Phipps, 1st Baron Mulgrave
 * 5) Henrietta-Maria Phipps m. Charles 12th Viscount Dillon his mother, Charlotte Lee, herself a granddaughter of the 1st Earl of Lichfield and his wife Charlotte Fitzroy, Charles II's bastard.
 * 6) Henry 13th Viscount Dillon
 * 7) Henrietta-Maria Dillon m. Edward Stanley, 2nd Baron Stanley of Alderley
 * 8) Blanche Stanley (1829-1921) m. David, 10th Earl of Airlie
 * 9) Lady Clementine Ogilvy m. Algernon Freeman-Mitford, 1st Baron Redesdale
 * 10) David, 2nd Lord Redesdale
 * 11) Diana Mitford (Mitford sisters) m. Oswald Mosley
 * 12) son Max Mosley
 * 13) Two sons
 * 1) David, 2nd Lord Redesdale
 * 2) Diana Mitford (Mitford sisters) m. Oswald Mosley
 * 3) son Max Mosley
 * 4) Two sons
 * 1) son Max Mosley
 * 2) Two sons

--Nexus5 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No daughters. Two sons. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at though? 4u1e (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Driving!! LOL driving at anything, its just interesting how the players of today have had ancesters who were players. --Nexus5 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No pun intended! Advantage breeds advantage, I guess. 4u1e (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Query
Is Max Mosley related to Timbaland of Mosley Music Group? 86.175.17.167 (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Grandchildren?
Have either of Mosley's sons ever had any children? Best name (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but it's not especially relevant to him anyway is it? It wouldn't tell us anything about him, for example. 4u1e (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is biographical info that is mentioned on many Wikipedia bios. As both Mosley's parents were famous, it would be interesting to know if he has two generation of descendants rather than just one. Best name (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I not trying to be difficult, but I can't see why. If he has two notable generations of descendants, yes, but his kids are not notable in themselves and whether they had kids too seems of no interest at all. It's not as if it's rare for people to become grandparents. Perhaps I'm missing something? 4u1e (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A great deal is known about Max Mosley's parents and maternal aunts. A fair amount is known about his siblings. However, very little is known about his wife and sons, and it does not seem to be known if he has grandchildren. That seems strange to me. An answer to that might be that wife and sons are not notable, but that raises the question of why they have never become notable. In any case, it is surprising that so little is known about the wife and sons of such a high-profile, controversial figure. The media tend to try to find out about the families of famous people. His elder son's drug addiction only became known about due to said son's death in May. Best name (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the press just didn't find anything of interest. In any case, the most I can tell you is that I've spent quite a lot of time researching Mosley and found nothing on Patrick or Jean. There is a little more about Alexander in the refs given in the article, but it seems of no relevance to Mosley. In the absence of any information, I guess he has no grandchildren, but it's difficult to prove such a negative. 4u1e (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, some of the content at WP:BLP suggests cutting back info on non-notable relatives. I can't see knowing Jean's father's name, or Patrick and Alexander's middle names and birthdays adds anything to our knowledge about Mosley, but it does breach their privacy. Yes the info is out there, but I can't see any reason to repeat it here. 4u1e (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari favoritism
So as we all suspected it was true, Mosley and the FIA did favour Ferrari for all those years. Max giving Ferrari a veto and Bernie giving them more money than everyone else has to be evidence of this.

Mosley is little more that than a dictator (which several Formula One personalties have noted), He even uses the old 'I would resign but the people beg me to stay technique'. Why aren't he numerous U turns on retirement documented in this article?

This article reads like Mosley propaganda. I realise that there has to be NPOV but come on, keeping out the facts doesn't make the article natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.86.208 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it reads like a neutral account of his life. Two of the u-turns on retiring are already there (2001 and 2004). You're correct that his commitment in 2008 that he would retire in 2009 is missing, feel free to add it with a ref. Although I know he said it, I haven't yet found the right ref to add. Most of what you seem to want to add is your interpretation of the facts. As it happens I agree with that interpretation. The research I've done on this article leads me to believe that he's a pretty unpleasant guy, an arrogant bully, and does use exactly the tactics you describe. But that's just my opinion and can't be added to the article without a reference from a notable authority to that effect. For some reason (I can't imagine what), commentators tend to be reluctant to say too many bad things about Max. I have included negative comments from Jackie Stewart. Some more negative stuff is starting to come out now and when Max does eventually retire, I suspect there will be a lot more, but until there is, we're a bit stuck. 4u1e (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Note: Mention of latest u-turn added. 4u1e (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Note that the article is currently semi protected, so IPs would be unable to edit. Aptery  gial  02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Although if an anon has any ref'd material they think should be added, they could post it here for someone else to add. 4u1e (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs a section on the Loonies Mclaren, Renault, Toro Rosso and BMW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo9WqlNA3sU or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANcqlRXpLkg. Also Flavio Briatore associates himself with loonies and wants to be the next 'Burney'.  Also perhaps a bit on Ron Dennis who is not the "Sharpest Knife in the Box" and Paul Stoddard who needs to keep taking his pills.  Perhaps it would be helpful to add to a new section call name calling, with a quote from DC who labelled it 'childish name calling'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.190.71 (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A section called 'name calling' would be, well, childish. It would also violate WP:NPOV, since it would appear to be trying to make a point. Judicious mentions of the most notorious instances (i.e those that have provoked significant comment outside the tabloids) and within the existing structure might be useful though. 2007's 'certified halfwit' comment on Jackie Stewart is already mentioned, for example. 4u1e (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One I would like to work in somewhere was Max's comment to Frank Williams that he had destroyed Williams' business model, which is rather more interesting in the light of current developments. 4u1e (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a section about what a wanker this guy is? Probably the most salient point missing from the article.
 * Don't be silly. 4u1e (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to turn into Alec Guinness in The Bridge over the River Kwai, at some point you need to blow the bridge up even if it was a lot of hard work and looks lovely.
 * Er, your analogy doesn't work. I'm working on the film, it makes no odds to me whether the bridge gets blown up or not. 4u1e (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mosley lacks credibility, I genuinely don't think all the facts are being added to this article, I have added the latest u-turn but I suspect like Max's numerous other u-turns it will be editited of wikipeida which will mean that anyone reading this article in future will not realise that Max resigns and then stands for re-election due to the pressure of the unnamed multitudes every year! The fact that he acts exactly like a dictator, a point which Montezemolo has picked up, should be illustrated with the facts.
 * That Montezemolo said he was a dictator - fine, a ref'd statement from a notable source, albeit not an unbiased one. No problem with that, given that we're clear where Monte's loyalties lie. You might note that all of the u-turns are in the article: 2001, 2004 and 2008/9. You have correctly added the latest twist in the 08/09 one, and that's changing on a daily basis, so who knows where we'll end up. 4u1e (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not add the name calling, adding the facts surely can't be seen to making a point? Its not like there isn't enough room on the Wikipedia servers to add them all! It's ironic that Max can call people names but due to the recent protection on this article people couldn't call him names back!
 * Some of the name calling is in there. As I said above, some more could usefully be added, for example the 'looney' comment (see my sandbox for the version I'm working on, which does include it. Please remember though, that it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to provide a forum for people to "call him names back". 4u1e (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think it would be useful to add the fact that Manor is run by Nick Wirth an old business partner of Max but I don't know where it would fit with the existing structure.
 * Manor is not run by Wirth, but Wirth's company is heavily involved with the project. Good point, but a minor one without something more substantial to back it up. I can't really see anywhere it can sensibly be added - I've not seen any of Mosley's critics suggest publicly there's been anything unfair about the selection process for the new teams. Bear in mind that you can play Six degrees of Kevin Bacon with everyone in F1 due to the way key people have moved around the sport. 4u1e (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch out for Max asking the FIA(/Senate) for emergency powers to put down the FOTA (/Separatists) rebels! With Max training his apprentice Alan Donnelly it looks like FOTA will have to look for a saviour who will presumably have to find the banished Ron Dennis for training in the powers of the force. I wonder if Max has a daughter that was hidden from him at birth?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.86.208 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * :D Despite your concerns, if you read the article, you'll find lots of nasty facts about Mosley. For example: he was actively engaged in the Union Movement and supported his father's rascist campaigns in the late 1950s; having signed up Chris Amon he tried to get him fired because he was too expensive; it looks very much as if he forced Alan Rees and Graham Coaker out of March; he ran a rather financially unsuccessful F1 team; he and Bernie have been joined at the hip since the 1970s, despite their conflict in interests; his plan to sell Bernie the 100-year leasehold on F1 rights netted a paltry return for the FIA compared to other major sports; he called a well-known dyslexic (and incidentally triple world champion) a certified halfwit (which I find unforgiveable); and there are the allegations of unfair treatment of McLaren in 2007. You'll also note that no-one actually has anything good to say about him. There's not a single heartwarming anecdote about how kind or warm or funny Max is. Interesting, no? 4u1e (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mosley image
What is wrong with the Mosley image from commons that has just been removed? Francium12 (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the edit summary, it was removed from Commons due to a "copyright violation". Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looked very much like a stolen image from a magazine or website, but was tagged as having been taken by the uploader - unlikely as it appeared to be from an FIA press conference. 4u1e (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How has he managed to remain in his job?
There has, for years, been a great deal of opposition to Mosley, yet he has kept his sought-after, high-ranking position. Who is supporting him? It seems improbable that someone could stay for so long unless others with influence want him to, but the article does not indicate much support for him. I've never heard or seen anyone praise him as a person or as a motorsport boss. The article is incomplete without some info on this matter. Someone must like him - who? Best name (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is his position sought after? Last I heard, there was no salary with it, although the perks are considerable. Anyway, my understanding of the reasons for his continued presence, gleaned I think mainly from Grandprix.com and possibly from Terry Lovell's 'Bernie's Game', is that it is partly due to the large number of African and Asian countries with equal FIA voting rights, but relatively little involvement in motorsport compared to Western Europe, the Americas and Japan. They don't want to rock the boat and tend to vote with the incumbent president to maintain whatever privileges they feel they are getting. Much the same effect probably kept the equally unpopular Jean-Marie Balestre in power for a long time. Remember also that the FIA doesn't only deal with motorsport, and the national motoring organisations may not share the view of him held in motorsport circles. Finally, Max is quite adept politically, when he doesn't let his mouth run away with him in public.
 * I agree that the reason for his remarkable survival needs to be included, but it's tricky to ref well, since of course the ballots are secret, and Max doesn't exactly encourage free and open comment on the workings of the FIA. If you can find the appropriate refs, please add it. Otherwise, it's on my list of things to do! 4u1e (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also the fact that Max has sued in the past for libel, so all you get are rumours posted. Over last year, rumours appeared in some motorsport presses that the money from McLaren's 2007 fine had gone to lots of small countries to promote racing etc there. The problem being it was all carefully worded so I'm not sure how one would ref. Max is a controversial chap but we should not be out to 'dish the dirt' on him without first havng the refs. Who knows, perhaps history will remember him for his safety work rather than the controversies. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Also, in 2007 some writers - Alan Henry in Autocar was one I think - who made comments to the effect that they weren't going to comment on the McLaren fine because they couldn't risk not getting their press passes for the following year. Passes are probably done via FOM rather than the FIA, but Bernie and Max are as ever joined at the hip. All my speculation of course. I'm hoping that once Max is gone (assuming he does actually go and doesn't do a Putin), some more concrete stuff may emerge. 4u1e (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Guido Van Woerkom (president of the Dutch motoring body) was quoted as saying "when you look at the McLaren fine, that is a lot of money, and when you get something from that you are more or less in favour of the people giving you that bread".
 * Now we could add that quote - although would we be giving his view undue weight? 4u1e (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We'd need him directly linking it to Mosley explicitly (rather than implicitly). Nature of it being a BLP article is that we have to be super strict on our sourcing. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True, as for all this stuff. Woerkom's comment was in the context of the vote of confidence in Mosley, so it is explicitly related, but I'd rather use something that sounds more like a neutral assessment! 4u1e (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wealth
How much is his personal fortune and income? What are the sources of it? Mosley seems to be very wealthy, but the article gives very little detail on the matter. Best name (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't be able to get figures (unsurprisingly), but there is some material available on this. I'll get back to you. 4u1e (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Terry Lovell, his personal wealth comes from his family, the sale of March Engineering, his salaried role in the 1980s as President of the Manufacturer's commission, and property business in conjunction with Ecclestone. He also had a consultancy firm in the 1970s and 1980s that earned money from, among others, FISA and Simtek, respectively his employers and another of his companies. (see Lovell pp.231 and 244-246) My preference would be to include this stuff at the appropriate points in the article, rather than create a 'Personal income' section. What do others think? 4u1e (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Law career
The article states he qualified as a barrister in 1964, but does not state during which years he practised law. Best name (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question, but I may not be able to answer it. I would guess only between 64 and 70, but I don't know how long you can remain current as a lawyer while spending most of your time doing something else. 4u1e (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

new Mosley image
FYI - there's a new flickr image on commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Max_Mosley_by_makeroadssafe.jpg But it has not yet been reviewed by an admin or reviewer to confirm that the Creative Commons license is valid. --Oᴅᴏʀ (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It has now, and the license is wrong, I'm afraid. 4u1e (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Degree of detail on relatives
Konakonian and myself have argued ourselves to a standstill over the degree of detail on some of the relatives of Max Mosley (son of Oswald), that should be included in his article. (See here) The various points are: This is all pretty minor stuff, but the current state of the article (per Konakonian's preferred version), seems to me to contain far more trivial info on these points than any other biographical article I've been able to find. I feel this is to the detriment of readability, and there is the privacy concern too. It's removal would to Konakonian be detrimental to the completeness of the article. Comments welcome. 4u1e (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Should Mosley's father in law be named? I contend that in this case he's not relevant to Max Mosley so he can safely be left out to maintain clarity. Konakonian suggests that it is important to include details of all close relatives for completeness. The individual is not notable as far as I know, and does not have an article here.
 * Should middle names, full dates of birth and number of children (none) be given for Mosley's two sons? Konakonian says that it is worth including the information if if is available, I suggest that it is unnecessary, and the implication of WP:BLPNAME is that we should leave out details of non-notable relatives due to privacy concerns.
 * Similarly, should we include the middle name of Mosley's wife?
 * I agree. If Mosley's father-in-law is to be included, then why not HIS parents, "and so ad infinitum"? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. How can you compare mentioning the closets in-laws to mention everything else? That's like saying that instead of making an article on someone we make an article about someone that includes everyone who came before him!... Mentioning the closest relatives is quite ordinary in articles, and you're arguing over little more than a few words!... Konakonian (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is a father-in-law a "closest relative", and why would you draw the line there in particular? (a little attention to WP:CIVIL wouldn't go amiss, by the way) --Ian Dalziel (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're exagerating about civility. Looks like in wikipedia we can't fart without someone saying something... Anyway, the closest relatives of a mentioned wife are not out of place, I mean, don't tell me you've never seen in biographies such mentions. Konakonian (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fart all you like - just don't tell me I'm talking nonsense, ok? Let's discuss improving the article? Mosley's father-in-law is not even a relative, never mind a close one. Why is his identity relevant to an article on Max Mosley? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now who's being uncivil? It's excessive susceptibility to call uncivility to a claim of making no sense that I've seen here on wikipedia at least once!... People allways say it because it's true, and no one ever complainted about it. Konakonian (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ian that the information seems irrelevant (even useless) here. I suspect that it is included only because it appears on thepeerage.com. I'm afraid Konakanian that your arguments seem to me to be purely "I like it" and "it's not doing any harm". Yes it's only a few words, but to me they are detracting from the article. However, I really would like some views from those more familiar with biographical articles. 4u1e (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A few words about the sons is by no means detractable. Other articles with a lesser body of text have such mentions. Even Presidents of countries. Starting from there... Konakonian (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Also, appearing on thepeerage.com is not a reason not to include anything anywhere. Konakonian (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC) It's not a question of doing any harm: if you can't grasp the notion that the simple mention to someone's children is part of a biography and the events of his life, then you could at least not bother because it's just a little edit. Unfortunately, none of those arguments work for you. What is the logic behind deliberately occulting someone's wife, in-laws and sons, immediate family? Why should we include it? Why should we include anything at all? Konakonian (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is almost no topic for which we include all known information, and nor should we. We make decisions all the time about what is appropriate and useful to include in articles, and I can't find any high quality articles that include this kind of detail. Please don't use strawmen - obviously mentioning Mosley's children and wife is relevant, and the article already did this. Mentioning their birthdays and middle names, not so much. Anyway, since this isn't really a policy matter, and since other than Ian, no-one else seems bothered (no response from WP:BIOGRAPHY and similarly inconclusive discussion there on other articles), I guess we'll agree to disagree and leave the detail in. If it becomes an issue at a future review of the article, I won't feel bound to keep it though. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find any high quality articles that include this kind of detail: that's not an excuse. Middle names are part of the name. Who is anyone to delete their middle names, under what reason? That's just arbitrary!... Are you really trying to justify that middle names are less important than whole names and that abbreviated names are more important than the whole information, and delete it just because it's in the middle? How can you say it's not valid information if a middle name is as actual as the rest of it? Konakonian (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. You want to include details to a degree markedly different to that in all the high quality articles - that is articles that have been extensively reviewed by the Wikipedia community - does it not give you some pause for thought? Your logic appears to be that everyone else is too lazy to include them, both those writing the articles and those reading them. How likely is that, really? We're not talking about the subject of the article, don't forget. The articles about Max, not his wife, kids or father in law. There are hundreds of details that are excluded from biographical articles of this nature - for reasons of size, if nothing else - and details on relatives are good candidates for exlusion. Would you give their shoe size, or their exam results? Eye colour? No? Why not? What is it about their birthdays of this man's sons that's important in an article about him? 4u1e (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean people are lazy. It may mean that either they did not find anything on it, since they were paying attention to other details, or they don't like genealogy and have prejudices and ghosts inside their heads and for that reason we can't say people's children names and it's sacred and all that... Size? Are you kidding me? Less than one line tops on an article that big? How can you compare people with show size? That's anti-humanistic, for that matter, just for start. It's about "him". Well, "he" married and had children. For your information, there are dozens of articles where children are mentioned, even Baronets and their issue. And small nobility too. I've seen them. You on the other hand are just an automobilism buff without any incursions over other areas. Konakonian (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I mean, the man's own family in an section refering to his family, when his wife is mentioned below as being the one who drove her husband into driving, and other members of his extended family are referred to and there is even a reference on his son's death... So much for the lack of detail!... Konakonian (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I suggested above, I think we'd better stop the discussion. You're getting quite incoherent in your responses, and I've already said I'm happy to leave the article as it is, until such time as someone else expresses an opinion. But I'm not going to agree with you and your tendency to make personal attacks and misrepresent my position - I've never suggested that we shouldn't have information on Mosley's sons or wife - is wearing. I'll make no further responses here - I suggest you do the same. 4u1e (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asked a while back by Konakonian to come and give my opinion on the issues raised here. (Unfortunately, I am able to do so only now, after Konakonian has been blocked as a sock puppet of a blocked user.)  That being said, I find myself more or less in agreement with 4u1e.  I think it is a clear violation of WP:BLP to give the full birthdate and middle name of a living person not a public figure and not the subject of the article, and I don't view someone being the youngest son of a youngest son of a baronet a sufficient justification to violate their privacy in this manner, whether a baronet is a 'real' member of the peerage or not. As to the father-in-law, if notable then it might provide useful context, but the very language used, calling him "one James Taylor" speaks to irrelevancy.  As to these details being given on other pages, well, yes, sometimes, and they shouldn't be there either.  Such often result from a small number of active posters adding the details faster than others can find them and remove them, which doesn't represent a consensus.  In short, I would ditch the father-in-law, and at least for the living son give at most the birth year and first name. For the deceased son, it is less of a problem, but I don't think the middle name and precise dates are worth the space they occupy.  On the other two issues raised, I am rather agnostic. I would rank the wife as more immediate than the sons, and hence a middle name might be more defensible, but I could take it or leave it. As to the sons not having children, it has a degree of relevance, but I would say it differently: that Max has two sons, X and Z, but no grandchildren. While the take-home message is the same, this at least is a statement about Max, rather than about the sons. Agricolae (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not a sockpuppet. User:Kww seems to have blocked me without any reason. For what I've read about sockpuppetry it seems that either because I'm making edits to the same vast area of knowledge, or not so much, or because I'm using a public computer at my workplace that a blocked editor might have once used, maybe years ago, I'm getting blocked too. If this is the case, I've seen an IP in Bahrein or something being blocked for vandalism and when someone complainted that it would block half of the people of that country's city where they were, the Administrator simply answered that he or she should create an account. I have mine blocked. I don't want to believe that I am the only person in my country to like the Tudor period, among other things. It makes no sense to be mistaken with the person whose edits I've actually sometimes corrected or improved. You and others corrected and completed my edits and you weren't accused of anything. That is, people can't be blocked just because they make edits on articles where someone else also did. Also, apparently the absence of User:G.-M. Cupertino from this particular discussion if not anything else at least to stand for me might be dued to the fact that his discussion page where he is allowed to appeal from his blocked was blocked from being edited by him thanks to an overzealous Administrator and probably can't even edit his own user page, otherwise he'd most likely have done it by now. As for the rest of the matter, Max Mosley's sons have no presumption of privacy, since their names appear at least at http://thepeerage.com/. So much for the violation. It makes no sense to add only the first name, specially in countries like Spain, Portugal, France or Britain where people sometimes have up until six names and sometimes use different combinations of them, and where those names would become almost uncomprehensible if simply reduced to a first and last. What is the difference between the first and second names? Or between a small full name and removing just one of them? They're both equally names. Also, I won't start on the question that in Peerage and Royalty all names and dates actually appear. Why shouldn't they appear on other articles as you claim? Are they lesser than Royalty for this matter? It becomes a petty if not illogic question, rather ruled in an extreme way and without any middle ground. Is it really a rule or simply an interpretation of an abstraction? And what is a consensus? Isn't it just half a dozen of dilletant and often biased editors who are confined to knowledge and doxology on a specific area and sometimes are only experts on wikipedia rules and nor on actual matters of expertise with a policy or reducing and deleting and cutting like a State with a debt crisis, who join and whatever they find out even if exagerated or absurd, becomes rule? On User talk:Jeanne boleyn you can read how people are starting to complaint about your Draconian ways. Adding a family as part of the article is also part of knowledge. How is the moment and the son someone had less significant than the day he himself was born? I've read the claim that "wikipedia is not a genealogy website". That only and simply means (at least if interpreted without extremism) that it is not a website where we can create articles solely based in genealogy and in the mere existence of any individuals and use pure genealogy and simple persons as a motive for having an article on them, as if it was a http://genealogy.wikia.com/. But genealogy, like it or not, is part of the knowledge universe, as is Art, and Culture, and Medicine, and television, etc, etc, etc. And is part of the human events like birth, marriage, actions and death. Also, as it happens so many times, notable people often appear connected to each other and become a group, something people often overlook. That is why even the descendants of President Abraham Lincoln, among others, have articles, as if they were American Royalty. In other occasions, like the son of a Baronet who had two sons who are in line of succession, one of which might have even attained some notoriety but both of whom are also almost extinct without issue, they can be added without making the article all about them. People who are interested in Genealogy, as other people are interested in History, Sports, Sociology and details on everything, and come to an encyclopedia looking for those connections and often miss them, only get frustrated with the lack of information, or that some biased people had banned those informations from the universe of the tangible knowledge. I've come up to articles on paper encyclopedias looking for the connections between notable Romans and possible some connections to their future offspring, including modern Kings, and we simply can't find them, since they don't provide them. Who is anyone to say that the date of birth of the sons of a IIIrd century Roman Emperor isn't worth mentioning? That's partly why we know so little from back then. That's how so many knowledge gets lost for good. If they weren't important people wouldn't actually write books about the, like Christian Settipani. It's intelelctually arrogant to simply dismiss all that. Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We tend to avoid the birthdates (not the years) for living people; it's an invitation to identity theft. This holds doubly for non-notable people, where the claim of encyclopedic interest is extremely weak.
 * Mosley's father is certainly relevant; whether it was that family of Mosleys was one of the questions I asked as soon as the article was mentioned to be. (But even the most notable exemplar of the Bad Baronet is not a nobleman, in English, much less his son.)
 * His father-in-law has much less encyclopedic interest. Why should he? Who cares? and thepeerage.com is not, in general, a reliable source; it's a personal website, with none of the fact-checking expected (and sometimes found) in published work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reduced the dates of birth of Mosley's sons so that the year only is given, even though one of them is dead, because I agree with the identity theft point and because it would look very odd if we were inconsistent between them.
 * I agree with Septentrionalis that Mosley isn't what we call a 'nobleman' in the British Isles. Other countries give a wider meaning to words which may look as if they mean the same, but which usually don't.
 * It seems to me to be usually relevant to include the subject's father-in-law, where known, and in this case the detail that he was a policeman seems to show that Mosley married into a different world from his own. Many Who's Who entries include fathers-in-law.
 * Middle names are often significant, and I feel that if someone is worth naming then we shouldn't cut out names unless there's a good reason to do so.
 * I agree that thepeerage.com is not what we mean by "reliable source", but it is nearly always an accurate mirror of the better sources it cites, as well as being convenient. I have found far more mistakes in the ODNB, which technically is an rs. The site is widely cited on Wikipedia and I don't think it has ever been identified as one which needs to be avoided. I do find its long address strings (such as "Winchester College, Winchester, Hampshire, England, UK" tiresome: they clearly shouldn't be copied. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since others are now commenting, I guess I can again too (ref my statement to Konakonian above). Agree with all (except Konakonian) that full birthdates are not a good idea. Now a little more detail on Jean's father has been turned up, I agree that this is relevant because of the marked difference in background. That's a positive outcome from all of this discussion.
 * I really don't see the use of the middle names - had either of the boys carried the name 'Oswald' it might have been notable! - and agree with Agricolae's comment above that they are also part of the identity theft problem. I've removed them for now, are others content with this, or is there a positive reason for including them?
 * I note that mention of grandchildren has now gone and believe that this is correct, since a) it doesn't seem relevant to Max, and b) none of the sources actually say this. Thepeerage.com merely fails to mention any children of Patrick and Alexander. It also fails to mention Jean's mother, but I think we can assume she had one, so evidently it's not a complete record.
 * Ideally we need better sources than Thepeerage.com and the Dail Mail, but I'm happy to leave it for now. 4u1e (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)