Jump to content

Talk:Ivan Massow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I have made some adjustments to this article, as I suspect that again this is Ivan's self publication at hand. I was a close friend of James (Jamie) Knight for many years before he met Ivan, we grew up together in the same area, I loved Jamie, and do to this day. Ivan caused great offense to many of Jamie's friends, his death was a great and terrible shock, the grief a suicide causes to friends, but more importantly to family, is the greatest of sadnesses. Jamie was only with Ivan for a matter of months, not as the article pertains a 'long term boyfriend'. Ivan excluded Jamie's friends from his life, he was, we felt, too good for us. Jamie was already in an extremely vulnerable situation before he met Ivan, and in the FEW SHGORT MONTHS he was with him, we found it almost impossible to see him. When he died, Ivan hijacked the funeral, where we found ourselves excluded at the back of the church. We had utterly no say in the proceedings. At his parents home, Jamie's mother asked another great friend of Jamies to make a speech next to a tree that we planted in the family garden for Jamie. In the middle of this speech, Ivan, (unable to handle the fact that Jamie actually had a history and a life before he met him), stormed off saying 'there's a time and a place for this'!!!!! Saying that we were disgusted, at a moment of such grief, emotion and sensitivity, would be an understatement. To read into this behaviour, it's obvious that Ivan could not handle the fact that Jamie actually had real relationships outside of his, albeit very short one, with Ivan. In the years after Jamie's death, Ivan constantly publicised his grief over Jamie in the media, and caused even more offense by stating that Jamie had been found in a pool of blood where he died. This was certifiably and utterly untrue. To me, Ivan is a Walter Mitty type character, strangely soulless. I'll never forget the insult he handed us over Jamie, and I hope that he reads this.--Bouphos (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ivan Massow is a consummate self-publicist as his Wiki entry clearly demonstrates - but this is not mentioned. The article could benefit from a disinterested editor's emmendations ... if it must waffle on about the man's success, perhaps it could also mention the failure of his commercial interests and the on-going debate with his bankrupted business partners/employees who would consider most of the content comical fiction.

- Why such a long article? For goodness sake, it's almost as long as Boudica's... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.75.110 (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks? Charisma?

[edit]

This article could do with gutting. It harps on far too much about Massow's "good looks" and "charisma", both of which are debateable. Despite his ALLEGED benefits to the gay community (that seemed to benefit himself more than anyone else), Massow was also got a lot of bad press for being a Tory.79.66.119.207 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

[edit]

I have essentially gutted the article, a virtually unsalvageable, inchoate mass of original research, subjective commentary, uncorrected vandalism, BLP violations, and likely accurate but thoroughly unsourced factual claims. It shouldn't be very difficult for editors generally familiar with the subjects involved to expand the article in compliance with applicable policies, but given the long time that the utterly unacceptable text was allowed to stnad, that wasn't likely to happen without some drastic prodding. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevent to the article...

[edit]

is this...Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ivan_Massow.2FUser:LisaThorne

Suggested new wording for business career.

[edit]

Here is a suggested new wording for the business career section (part of the hopefully now finished edit-warring):

Despite massive publicity, Massow Financial Services was not financially successful, recording a £700,000 loss in 1998-99 and £465,777 the following year,[1] and in 2000 it was merged with another prominent gay IFA firm, Rainbow Finance of Oxford, run by Louis Letourneau, with expectations that turnover would rise from £2M per annum to over £3M, but the merged firm went out of business within one year. Massow's salary was £245,768 in 2000 and £387,000 in 1999.[1] Massow bought the business back from the Receiver with Letourneau claiming that the merger had happened after Massow had endured two years of heavy loses and that he had been made a scapegoat for Massow's failures.[2]

Between 2003 and 2004 Massow was Director of another financial adviser firm, this time a tied agent of the Zurich Advice Network (previously Allied Dunbar), but that too ended in acrimony after predictable problems arose in underwriting for insurance the gay clients in which Massow specialised. Massow accepted £330,000 in order to become an agent for the firm in a move that was seen as an about-turn at the time as he had previously campaigned against what he saw as Allied Dunbar's anti-gay underwriting practices. A long legal case followed which, ultimately, Massow lost.[3]

- does anyone have any objections? Or parts they'd like added? Fayedizard (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last section could do with a bit of rewording. Why were the problems that arose "predictable"? Who saw his move as an about turn? Valenciano (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

Despite massive publicity, Massow Financial Services was not financially successful, recording a £700,000 loss in 1998-99 and £465,777 the following year,[1] and in 2000 it was merged with another prominent gay IFA firm, Rainbow Finance of Oxford, run by Louis Letourneau, with expectations that turnover would rise from £2M per annum to over £3M, but the merged firm went out of business within one year. Massow's salary was £245,768 in 2000 and £387,000 in 1999.[1] Massow bought the business back from the Receiver with Letourneau claiming that the merger had happened after Massow had endured two years of heavy loses and that he had been made a scapegoat for Massow's failures.[2]

Between 2003 and 2004 Massow was Director of another financial adviser firm, this time a tied agent of the Zurich Advice Network (previously Allied Dunbar), but that too ended in acrimony after problems arose in underwriting for insurance the gay clients in which Massow specialised. Massow accepted £330,000 in order to become an agent for the firm in a move dispute previously campaigning against what he saw as Allied Dunbar's anti-gay underwriting practices.[3] A long legal case followed which, ultimately, Massow lost.[3]

...instead? Fayedizard (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would perhaps consider changing "Despite massive publicity" to "Despite significant publicity" - it is more measured. Also the string of words comprising "in a move dispute previously campaigning against what he saw as.." is difficult to unravel, in fact I can't work out what it means. On a general note please remember that originally you were going to let the unsourced version of the article stand just for a couple of hours - that period has long passed. I am concerned that LisaThorne has made no attempt to engage in this discussion, and am of the view that she may not engage as long as the article version is one that she is happy with. Please put up the new text, amended slightly if need be - it is all sourced. If LisaThorne has objections, she should comment here, not just revert as before. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re the section that you can't unravel, I would suspect it's a simple typo and "dispute" should be "despite." So the sentence should read: "Massow accepted £330,000 in order to become an agent for the firm despite previously campaigning..." On the wider point, I agree with readding this section. Valenciano (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - I proposed leaving the whitewashed article up for "a couple of hours" so that a new and potentially useful editor could be brought in genteelly and not suffer the particularly nasty learning curve that WP can have for people trying genuinely right a wrong. Unfortunately after 24 hours there's been no sign so I agree that the article should be rebuild - I'd still like to bring in the new editor in question, but I'd rather not delay so I think they will have to work with a more wikipedia-friendly version than the version they prefer. I've re-added the business section and removed unsourced stuff from charity and media (I've not done massive spot-checks though so more might have to go) .Fayedizard (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It seems like i am always apologising.. but i thought you were making changes directly the page and have been checking every hour or so for the past day. --LisaThorne (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem - it's a steep learning curve and nobody expects perfect first time (or at all) - your input on the art section would be really good. But we also need to talk about reliable sources - everything on wikipedia should be traceable to another source so that *anyone* can check the facts of the case for themselves. This is particularly the case for Biographies of living people (which this is) - so if you'd like to add something, then the easiest way of doing so is to provide an online source. And some sources are better than others - so we might trust a persons personal website for things like date-of-birth but we'd want any business based facts to be from established media outlets (BBC is good, so are a bunch of the papers) - sourcing something from Massow himself isn't actually helpful - because nobody can check it. You can see below that Pale has provided a bunch of links that might come in handy. Fayedizard (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing details about the huge VC deal and subsequent expansion? The losses are explainable and were planned. You are re-writing the history to make it sound bad--LisaThorne (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC),[reply]

As just above - it's because they are not sourced. If you can find reliable sources for them, I'll happily put them in myself :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the deal pre-dated the internet really - but there are references to it http://itsaqueerworld.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/fall-and-rise-of-ivan-massow-serial.html http://www.spokeo.com/Ivan+Massow+1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaThorne (talk • contribs) 15:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the line that detailed losses made by Massow's company at the end of the 1990s; although sourced, I thought that perhaps it wasn't balanced to only give figures for 2 years - there might have been profits in other years, but the article doesn't (yet) detail other years. However there is an argument for re-inserting the information in a slightly different place - after Letourneau's comment about the losses - where it is relevant. I've also made a few other tweaks that I think give the text a more neutral tone. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me :) Fayedizard (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d One-time political golden boy saves his ailing firm. Daily Telegraph, 6 October 2001.
  2. ^ a b Collinson, Patrick (12 January 2002). "Rainbow warrior in stormy waters". The Guardian.
  3. ^ a b c The fall and rise of Ivan Massow. The Guardian, 2 September 2011.

New references for use in the article

[edit]

New references to be used in this contentious article can be placed below. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]

Business

[edit]

Contemporary art

[edit]

Politics

[edit]

Banksy's Coming For Dinner

[edit]

Personal views

[edit]

Art

[edit]

As per buisness section - Suggested wording for art section:


In 1999, Massow became Chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. In January 2002, he wrote an article in New Statesman magazine attacking the predominance of conceptual art in the art world. He described modern concept art as "pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat" and "the product of over-indulged, middle-class [...], bloated egos who patronise real people with fake understanding". He called the ICA a "pillar of the shock establishment". He attacked Tracey Emin saying she "couldn't think her way out of a paper bag".[1]

In February 2002, Massow resigned as Chairman of the ICA, after the baord unamiously asked him to resign.[2] One board member describing him as "a little bit of a pillock" and speculation that Massow had deliberately been as provocative as possible in order to engineer his own sacking.[3] He has described the art world as "bitchy and superficial", although he claims to actually like much conceptual art and claims he spoke out in order to redress the imbalance between the promotion of conceptual and more traditional art in the British art scene.[4]

How do we feel? Fayedizard (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest removing the bit about one board member describing him as a pillock. It doesn't add anything. I'd suggest the amended text below, also please note that the last two guardian refs are the same so we'd need to amend the ref template accordingly. Valenciano (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 1999, Massow became Chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. In January 2002, he wrote an article in New Statesman magazine attacking the predominance of conceptual art in the art world. He described modern concept art as "pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat" and "the product of over-indulged, middle-class [...], bloated egos who patronise real people with fake understanding". He called the ICA a "pillar of the shock establishment". He attacked Tracey Emin saying she "couldn't think her way out of a paper bag".[1]

In February 2002, Massow resigned as Chairman of the ICA, after the baord unanimously asked him to resign.[5] There was speculation that Massow had deliberately been as provocative as possible in order to engineer his own sacking.[6] He has described the art world as "bitchy and superficial", although he claims to actually like much conceptual art and claims he spoke out in order to redress the imbalance between the promotion of conceptual and more traditional art in the British art scene.[4]

Hmm... I'd like to explore the quote a bit more actually - my reasoning being that if some guy on the street calls me a pillock, that's one thing - but if you're chairman of the board of a major institution and Ekow Eshun, who sits on the board with you is openly quoted as such, then that's a bit more notable... How about we split the difference? Give the quote but with the context and attribution and tone down the bitchyness

In 1999, Massow became Chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. In January 2002, he wrote an article in New Statesman magazine attacking the predominance of conceptual art in the art world. He described modern concept art as "pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat" and "the product of over-indulged, middle-class [...], bloated egos who patronise real people with fake understanding". He called the ICA a "pillar of the shock establishment". He attacked Tracey Emin saying she "couldn't think her way out of a paper bag".[1]

In February 2002, Massow resigned as Chairman of the ICA, after the board unanimously asked him to resign.[7] Board member Ekow Eshun was quoted in The Guardian as saying "I have no problem with Ivan bringing up this debate. But Ivan has been ramping up the story all week. I think he's been a little bit of a pillock.". There was speculation that Massow had deliberately been as provocative as possible in order to engineer his own sacking.[8] Massow claims he spoke out in order to redress the imbalance between the promotion of conceptual and more traditional art in the British art scene.[4]

Thoughts? Fayedizard (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That latest version looks good to me. I've made a couple of tiny format tweaks. SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there were thousands of articles and comments. Ivan was on every arts show BBC today and on the whole the event was exciting and created a debate. One directors passing comment doesn't even begin to represent the depth and nature of the feeling. It is the only quote ! Ecow also replaced ivan and then bankrupted the ica but thats another issue. --LisaThorne (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This works best if you can give us the wording you think should be added, and sources that support the wording (also if you'd like to work on the Ekow Eshun article then I'd encourage you to do so). Fayedizard (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful if the article elaborates a little on what happened between Massow becoming Chairman and his leaving. Something like: "In 1999, Massow became Chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. He was brought in by Director Philip Dodd to increase sponsorship and patronage for the organisation. The working relationship between Massow and Dodd was not wholly successful,[9] a situation that worsened when in January 2002 Massow wrote an article in New Statesman magazine...." This might help establish a bit of background to his leaving. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that - feel free to pop the whole thing into the article... Fayedizard (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just included a cited quote from Massow in this section, a quote that slightly softens his criticism of Tracey Emin - I thought it was good not to just reel off his criticisms of the art world without a bit of insight into his perspective on what he himself said, thus balancing the quote from Ekow Eshun. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Massow, Ivan (21 January 2002). "Why I hate our official art". New Statesman.
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1801503.stm
  3. ^ ICA fires chairman over 'tat' art jibe. The Guradian, 5 February 2002.
  4. ^ a b c Gibbons, Fiachra (5 February 2002). "ICA fires chairman over 'tat' art jibe". The Guardian.
  5. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1801503.stm
  6. ^ ICA fires chairman over 'tat' art jibe. The Guradian, 5 February 2002.
  7. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1801503.stm
  8. ^ ICA fires chairman over 'tat' art jibe. The Guardian, 5 February 2002.
  9. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jan/30/fiachragibbons

New edit

[edit]

Hey all,

Sorry I'm new to this and have been writing a paper on Massow - it was only when I'd finished the intro of the new edit that I realised all the controversy over this one.

It seems to lack a bit of balance - making him out to be a bit of a scumbag and an unsuccessful business man - one he may well be, but we can't say he is both, can we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allymillar4 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on the content of reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), and are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) to reflect the balance presented in those sources. It is not appropriate nor recommended that editors decide what 'angle' to take with an article subject - the article should reflect the sources, with consideration given to give due weight to particularly well-represented aspects. What is your interest in Massow? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaleCloudedWhite,

I saw my name again - just thought I'd weigh in, hopefully clear up some confusion!

I wasn't seeking to write with any agenda or angle, having used and enjoyed Wikipedia for many years (all through uni and beyond!) I absolutely understand the need for balance, neutrality and dispassionate fact.

My role in this is that I recently met Ivan Massow (I'd like to add I wouldn't say we're 'friends') on a couple of occasions as we both attend Alcoholics Anonymous, and he told me the stress the page is putting him under and how it's impacting his career.

I would never seek to remove anything that's properly cited - but the article as it stands is full of negative which, going back to my previous statement, isn't indicative of balance; and it doesn't tell the full story.

I'll also add that I'm not being compensated financially for this in any way - a point I would always insist on for ethical reasons. I just know (marginally!) more about Wikipedia than he and offered to help a la the Good Samaritan(!).

Basically: I'd just like to - properly cited and referenced of course - insert some more of the story and embellish in places that - as it stands - paint half a picture; concerned more with failures and controversy than anything else. No one's looking for a fight, quite the opposite, It seems fair to have a straight and balanced Wikipedia entry (obviously it's the first place anyone looks for info on anything), that - warts and all - shows Ivan Massow.

At the moment it's all warts and an unfair reflection of the man's career and life - and the page is impacting both right now.

Please do let me know how to proceed, I'll await your help!

Cheers

ally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allymillar4 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaleCloudedWhite - I have known Ivan for 20 years and i just know that this article isn't yet neutral. It gives a very negative spin to an fascinating career.. If I list all his dates and things that have happened to him as a public figure in this forum - would you consider accepting some of them if i attach links to all sources? There is just so much missing -

Also - some is untrue. It may be 'sourced' but it is taken from inaccurate articles. Please would you tell me what I have has to do to get untrue things taken out? For example, he didn't "accept 330k from Zurich" the company he was a shareholder in 'accepted a 330 transitional loan' (here's a link to the truth from an article when it happened - not a badly researched profile a few months ago http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news/massow-claims-zurich-tried-to-ruin-him/141627.article )

Another untruth is that he stood for mayor as an independent. He didn't - they just talkiness about it but there was never a simple signature on any nomination forms etc - not a single line of manifesto published - it's just rubbish). He was however the tory candidate for mayor (http://www.lgcplus.com/lgc-news/massow-pulls-out-of-london-mayor-race/1412996.article) he was asked to step into that role when Lord Artcher was arrested and the party had a m,ayoral vacuum. But when Norris put his hat in, Ivan stepped down and became his 'principal policy adviser' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/862683.stm)

As for business - Ivan has so many business successes - why aren't we allow dot mention any of them? There are 37800 google references to 'Ivan Massow Business' but WP will only allow the one that says he's a failure. Is there anyway we can bring balance.

Most of the really nasty stuff was entered by 'welsh-march' in one day about ten days ago. he seems to specialise in "editing" financial services people. Ivan has recently opened a consumer business that attacks financial advisers commission. I can't help wondering how 'neutral' mr Welsh March is..

Please tell me what I can do to bring some balance to this awful miscarriage of justice!

LisaThorne (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Lisa. Before we proceed, can you tell me whether or not you are the same editor as Allymillar4, who started this section barely an hour ago? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% not - I promise. Allylillar4 has made some mistakes such as they mayoral thing - I was correcting him too.

--LisaThorne (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is all going to take some time, not least because myself and all other Wikipedia editors do it (editing) for nothing and in our own time, something that some of us have precious little of, so you'll have to be patient. Also you'll see if you read my user page that this subject isn't a particular interest of mine - I do have other areas where I like to spend my time.
Firstly, if you haven't already done so, I recommend that you both (Lisa and AllyMillar4) read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; that will help you understand how Wikipedia works. Although anyone is free to edit Wikipedia, it doesn't operate as a free-for-all - there are guidelines, checks and balances (maintained by the consensus of the Wikipedia editing community) that prevent it being total anarchy. Lisa you have already encountered an element of this when I put up a posting about you at the conflict of interest noticeboard - to you I think it felt like a witchhunt, but from Wikipedia's point of view we were trying to ensure that behavioural guidelines were not transgressed. As a result, we have established that you have a major conflict of interest, which should always be borne in mind. Similarly with AllyMillar4, the fact that you personally know Massow and indeed have offered to help him and be a good samaritan, this also will impact on your ability to see the article from a neutral perspective. This does not mean that neither of you are able to contribute, but it is something that other editors need to be aware of.
Regarding the state of the article as it stands, I haven't got time right this minute to go through every complaint you may have. I did notice that one of the references that Lisa previously listed above (a couple of days ago) wouldn't count as a reliable source because it's a blog. In time either myself or the other interested editors will go through the references you have provided, and look at the specific complaints that you have. At the moment I agree that the business section isn't satisfactory, as it covers a great many years within just a couple of sentences. I hope you have noticed however that some work has been done already, both on this section and on the section about the ICA. A certain amount of detective work may be required to fill in the gaps. I hope you will be able to assist with that, but bear in mind that due to your conflict of interest, you both may view things differently to other editors and that as a result, it is almost certain that you won't be completely happy with certain aspects of the article. On the positive side (from your point of view), because the article is under scrutiny at the moment, it shouldn't suffer from vandalism or persecuting edits for long before someone notices and removes them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noting your complaints about inaccuracies, I've temporarily removed the 'Politics' section completely, awaiting its rewriting. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening everyone :) glad to see that things are moving on the article. Allymillar4 it's very nice to have you on board - I thought that the edit you did that expanded the lead was extremely good for a new editors - although it did have it's problems and I can see why PaleCloudedWhite quite reasonably reverted it. That said I think it might be a nice starting point for the lead - Pale, I wouldn't put it in myself because I think you were right to revert the edit, but if you wanted to pop the lead stuff back in that might be a nice compromise and something we could work on.

Similarly, LisaThorne it's excellent to find that you are bringing sources, really good stuff - I'm going to look into them in detail shortly, I think that you are fast developing as an editor. Obviously, as Pale says, us guys aren't paid for any of this, so it's pretty difficult to find the time - just some quick questions because it's possible that I've got confused about which sources are which? The source that you have supporting Ivan as a 'principal policy adviser' has the line 'But Mr Norris denied claims that he was his key aide, saying: "This whole idea that Ivan is a desperately close adviser is not something that I recognise." and the word 'principle' doesn't appear in the text - have I picked the right one? Actually, while we are here I'll start a politics section below... Fayedizard (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added a small part of AllyMillar4's intro; I didn't want to add any more because the lead isn't supposed to refer to anything that's not in the main text; seeing as the Politics section has been removed for the time being, it isn't right for the lead to really go into that. It can be added later. It's worth noting that there are too many references for specific claims in the lead, but I kept them in because they have info that can be used elsewhere. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics...

[edit]

So it's time to look at the politics section - below is a previous version of the text in the section - how do we think it can be improved?


In the 1990s Massow's flatmates were for a time current Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove and MP and former head of Conservative policy Nicholas Boles, a situation Massow described as "Tory Friends".[1]

However, Massow, along with many espousing "compassionate conservatism", was frustrated by the Party's apparent reluctance to alter its stance on gay rights issues and discrimination in general. In 2000, following John Bercow MP's resignation from the front bench and the defection of Shaun Woodward MP to Labour, Massow too left the Conservative Party to join the Labour Party,[2] where he was welcomed by Mo Mowlam.[3] There was a large amount of press interest in Massow's defection, despite him having never held elected office or even stood for Parliament. By 2004, Massow had left the Labour Party and unsuccessfully attempted to stand as Mayor of London with his own movement "Change London".[4]

Any comments welcome... Fayedizard (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayedizard/Ally

I have tried to outline Ivan's political career in date order below. There are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of references to most of these points; i've just listed the first ones I saw.. I'm still very worried that his business career and ICA career is very negative - there are no achievements. For example bios time at the ICA saw it go from near bankruptcy/loss making to profit making (and totally refurbished inside and out) and even bios comments were widely welcomed and a lot of fun - none of this is captured. Anyway here's my notes on politics:

1. Massow was a member of the tory party from a young age and chairman of the young conservatives at 14 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/862806.stm) 2. He became a senior adviser to the leader of the co conservative party William Hague (http://www.lbc.co.uk/hague-isnt-gay-but-would-it-matter-if-he-was-29346) 3. Massow’s big idea was ‘companionate conservatism’ -at a time when the party was looking to move to the right rather than the center as a response to Blair occupying the center ground. ( http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/tories-round-on-defector-massow-1.224655 ) 4. Hague seemed to respond well – even giving speeches on the new concept of a compassionate conservative party.b(http://www.socialismtoday.org/52/torygays.html 5. Massow was head of policy for London and a conservative mayoral candidate for London http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/545356.stm 6. A break through came was when Massow was allowed attend the 1999 conservative conference at Blackpool with Margret Thatcher (as her escort). As massow was an openly gay ‘compassionate conservative’ advocating the repeal of section 28. This act was specifically staged to send out a message to the old guard that the party needed to move to the center. (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ivan-massow-david-cameron-has-betrayed-gays-to-appease-the-right-7737178.html ) 7. But massow was severely criticized by the gay community which accused him of betrayed them. This significantly impacted his business and massow suffered financial losses. “I lost hundreds of gay clients over that appearance” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483299/The-downfall-man-pioneered-affordable-insurance-cover-homosexuals.html#ixzz21bthmSIw ) 8. Regardless massow was a tireless campaigner for the abolition of section 28 and ‘caring conservatism’ to the extent that he was in danger of being seen as a single issue politician http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Section_28 9. Massow defected to labour when his now close friend William Hague gave a speech supporting section 28 at the summer ball at the Dorchester – made more dramatic by the fact that he was seated at William hagues table when he walked out. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4253722/The-divisive-power-of-sex.html ) 10. Massow was offered a peerage to remain (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/massow-says-tories-offered-him-peerage-to-stay-in-party-711072.html ) 11. Massow defects to labour met by mo molem but played no active role in the party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/862683.stm 12. Instead, Massow considered standing at an independent for mayor of London http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/944 13. This bid was abandoned within days when he was approached by the conservative party and invited to rejoin and take his place on the candidates list as a member of parrluement where he remains. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/sep/02/fall-and-rise-ivan-massow . 14. Massow is currently head of the The Conservative Technology Initiative for London. http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/stansted-should-become-londons-global-magnet-7836019.html

I am not suggesting that Ivan does't serve criticism - but this is his career.. are we going to be allowed to explain what happened and the roles he had?

Kind regards --LisaThorne (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at the sources and the wording you suggest to see how closely it matches what the sources say...

1. "Massow was a member of the tory party from a young age and chairman of the young conservatives at 14 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/862806.stm)"

The source would support the text "Claimed to be chairman of the local young conservatives at 14 [5]

2. He became a senior adviser to the leader of the co conservative party William Hague (http://www.lbc.co.uk/hague-isnt-gay-but-would-it-matter-if-he-was-29346)

I'm afraid I can't listen to this at the moment - maybe someone else can comment)

3. Massow’s big idea was ‘companionate conservatism’ -at a time when the party was looking to move to the right rather than the center as a response to Blair occupying the center ground. ( http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/tories-round-on-defector-massow-1.224655 )

This source doesn't have the words 'right' or 'centre' in it anywhere that I can find, and doesn't mention who's idea it was - this source could support the text "Massow supported Compassionate Conservatism"

4. Hague seemed to respond well – even giving speeches on the new concept of a compassionate conservative party.b(http://www.socialismtoday.org/52/torygays.html

Um, actually this source would support wording to the effect of "Massow Condemned MP Shaun Woodward who defected to Labour over the Tories' anti-gay position.", which isn't really helping your goal of removing the negative stuff...

5. Massow was head of policy for London and a conservative mayoral candidate for London http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/545356.stm

Source doesn't mention 'policy' at all but would support wording to the effect of "Massow was one of four nominatee for the Conservitive candidate for Mayor in 1999"

6. A break through came was when Massow was allowed attend the 1999 conservative conference at Blackpool with Margret Thatcher (as her escort). As massow was an openly gay ‘compassionate conservative’ advocating the repeal of section 28. This act was specifically staged to send out a message to the old guard that the party needed to move to the center. (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ivan-massow-david-cameron-has-betrayed-gays-to-appease-the-right-7737178.html )

Um, this is a piece written by Massow himself, that would support the wording - "Massow was the escort for Margret Thatcher at the 1999 Conservative party conference"

7. But massow was severely criticized by the gay community which accused him of betrayed them. This significantly impacted his business and massow suffered financial losses. “I lost hundreds of gay clients over that appearance” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483299/The-downfall-man-pioneered-affordable-insurance-cover-homosexuals.html#ixzz21bthmSIw )

Again a piece written by Massow himself which would actually fairly reasonably support your wording (might need the odd 'He claimed' in there as well) but also this source supports having some content on suicide attempts, alcohol abuse and the like...

8. Regardless massow was a tireless campaigner for the abolition of section 28 and ‘caring conservatism’ to the extent that he was in danger of being seen as a single issue politician http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Section_28

Um - that's a link to wikipedia...Fayedizard (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9. Massow defected to labour when his now close friend William Hague gave a speech supporting section 28 at the summer ball at the Dorchester – made more dramatic by the fact that he was seated at William hagues table when he walked out. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4253722/The-divisive-power-of-sex.html )

This source does not include the word 'friend' or 'walked' - is this the right source?

10. Massow was offered a peerage to remain (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/massow-says-tories-offered-him-peerage-to-stay-in-party-711072.html )

This source would support the text "Massow has claimed was offered a peerage to remain"

11. Massow defects to labour met by mo molem but played no active role in the party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/862683.stm

This source would support "Massow was welcomed to the party by Mo Molem"

12. Instead, Massow considered standing at an independent for mayor of London http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/944 13. This bid was abandoned within days when he was approached by the conservative party and invited to rejoin and take his place on the candidates list as a member of parrluement where he remains. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/sep/02/fall-and-rise-ivan-massow .

The source just says "Bid to become mayor of London fails"

14. Massow is currently head of the The Conservative Technology Initiative for London. http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/stansted-should-become-londons-global-magnet-7836019.html

Yep - that's utterly supported by the text.

Do you see how careful we have to be that content is well sourced? Also a lot of the sources you are suggesting would support at lot more negative content than positive content... Fayedizard (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi

Thanks for your effort – because I knowthe story is true I just grabbed articles I thought would support it. So here we go:

1. “He joined his local Young Conservatives, becoming chairman by the time he was 14 - the youngest in the country” http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2000/aug/05/uk.thatcher 2. “Ivan has also been a senior policy adviser for William Hague and Steve Norris’s mayoral campaign” Guardian http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ivan_massow/profile.html 3. "Massow supported Compassionate Conservatism" is great thank you but also “ Massow's calls for what he says he called "compassionate conservatism" were overlooked” http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/apr/26/art.artsfeatures guardian 4. I’m not trying to remove negative stuff – just get bad AND good in where deserved. But there is so much about hague dabbling with compassionate comnservtism then running back to the right – “The openly gay businessman said he had given up hope that Tory Leader William Hague would move towards Compassionate Conservatism” http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/tories-round-on-defector-massow-1.224655 5. “Massow was one of four nominatee for the Conservitive candidate for Mayor in 1999” is fine but its untrue. He was briefly the only one – because archer was arrested and Norris refused to come back. The moment Norris did come back he stood down. It would be safer to say “Massow was a nominatee for the Conservative candidate for Mayor in 1999” 6. How about "Massow was the escort for Margret Thatcher at the 1999 Conservative party conference" which he claimed was to help athe party “understand that it was possible to be proudly gay and proudly Tory too”. It’s better than nothing. It was a historic event for the Tories and deserves being explained. 7. But Massow claimed that this backfired and significantly impacted his business “I lost hundreds of gay clients over that appearance” 8. I thought you’d find it funny. There are 155000 articles about ivan and section 28 how about this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/862683.stm 9. My version is true but the best I can find now is “Finally, Massow was at the Tory knees up known as the Blue Ball when Hague addressed the partygoers on the merits of section 28: Massow walked out in disgust” http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2000/aug/05/uk.thatcher 10. Massow has claimed was offered a peerage to remain – is ok – I think he’d prefer that wasn’t in to be honest anyway. He’s ashamed that he mentioned it. 11. Massow was welcomed to the party by Mo Molem" is fine - I cant prove negative - (but he didn’t or that would be online) 12. I guess it says that but he can’t have failed if he didn’t stand. He simply didn’t stand. He just talked about wanting to. There were no nominations or ballot papers etc. its sort of a myth. Don’t know what to suggest 13. Is this ok: Massow is currently head of the The Conservative Technology Initiative for London. http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/stansted-should-become-londons-global-magnet-7836019.html

Again thank you for your time. I’m sorry its hard to find articles that easily support the truth – he’s in politics and people always write damaging and misleading stuff to wound or discredit people. I’m just trying to tell you what actually happened.

--LisaThorne (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I agree that there is more work to be done. I would ask you to recognise that the rest of us are volunteers, we edit wikipedia for free and without a salary, and so can only devote a small proportion of our day to wikipedia, we also have many other wikipedia projects that don't involve this article at all. So, our time is very limited.
Something that slows me down a lot is having to go back and double check all of the sources. If you are just grabbing any article involving Maslow to support a claim in the hope that it might help, then that's going to make a lot of work for everyone involved. Because of your COI people will be checking your entries carefully so if you put something in that's badly sourced it will just be removed and we have to go around the loop again.
Something for you to consider - the article as it exists is very positive, it doesn't mention suicide attempts or acholoism, mental health, deaths of lovers or any of the other personal stuff that appears in the sources. It also doesn't mention things like "Massow Condemned MP Shaun Woodward who defected to Labour over the Tories' anti-gay position." - this is very positive article and as you add even more positive stuff you take the risk all the other stuff is added to keep the article balanced. What I might recommend is getting involved with wikipedia as a volunteer - doing some work with some articles were you don't have a COI, learning the way that wikipedia works from both sides, and coming back to this then and making a decision about which direction you want to push the article in. It would take a while, but might be best long term. Otherwise - we're happy to help work though now with you - but we're helping make wikipedia better, not make a more flattering article for your boss - and the two might be mutually exclusive. Fayedizard (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. There is a very great deal of information that could be included in this article, much of it rather more entertaining than your average biography. As the article expands to include more about Massow's achievements etc., then coverage of other aspects will also expand. This is not a bad thing - this is what Wikipedia is about. Having a conflict of interest can make it very difficult for people to view things dispassionately, which is what is needed when editing any one article on Wikipedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaleCloudedWhite and Fayedizard

I do agree and take your points. Ivan wouldn't mind you including anything you mentioned - even the alcoholism if its set in context - it's just someone stripped out his achievements and effectively trivialised him where in fact he had a massive career - mostly campaigning and someone was clearly trying to hide this. There are 79300 articles about him which verify the following main achievements:

he was the first person to recognise the pink pound starting from a squat that business became the 10th largest IFA in the UK - through it he became a Gay Icon - he's REALLY famous for this but no mention on his wik page. he was the first to provide insurance for people with HIV and AIDS and insurance services for petiole with Mental health. he was a key advocate of compassionate conservatism and the abolition of section 28 in the tory party. His ideas are now mainstream tory policy. But he arguably sacrificed his political career for this and his business suffered. he has had many successful business some of which are getting headlines as I write - ripping the heart out of corrupt commission practices -but this work isn't mentioned. he does do masses of charity stuff - and renovates crumbling historic buildings - all widely reported - most isn't mentioned He's dyslexic and worked in proisons helping people about being released for the princes trust (again no mention) - His Arts career included taking the ICA out of terrible financial trouble into 'surplice (charity speak for profit) - his attacking conceptual art was fun and set the agenda that is still being discussed. He gets reduced to a quite saying 'he's a pillock' by someone who went on to bankrupt the ICA. For example the real story is that his damming article focused on Tracy Emin who then lead a campaign for his sacking (he later apologised to her i person and they're friends again now by the way) - this is the story not some aggressive wannabe who had eyes on his job and then failed.

Ivan knows when he's fucked up - he has never hid from alcoholism etc and has written huge pieces in the papers about i (thttp://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/ivan-massow-now-my-glass-is-always-half-full-6773923.html). But if you're going to include the bad stuff - why can't it have the good stuff? There can't be a quota on how much good a man does? some people aren't half good half bad - nearly everything he has done has been highly principled. He wouldn't be in wikipedia if he hadn't done the good stuff - the bad stuff is kinda trivial. By missing it out we make him trivial.

Ivan has forwarded me a copy of an email to wikipedia asking for his bio to be deleted. I think he's found all this very upsetting. But i don't get the impression he wants a 'good or puff piece' if you ignore his request - he doesn't want and never asked to have a wiki page - but its the first thing people look at when they asses him for business or charitable involvement. and the spirit of what he was trying to active and did active is totally missing.

If wiki editors don't have time to put the stuff that he achieved that is 100% FINE - lets just take the page down as he's requested. But he's blown all chances of a knighthood by standing up against the establishment repeatedly - so if we rate going to have a page it only seems fair to say what he's done as no one else will.

I'm happy to work harder on making sure the sources are better. But in fairness - it's hard for me too - whoever has 'set the tone' has really convinced you guys that Ivan is a bad guy - and trivial. He's neither.

--LisaThorne (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Lisa. Speaking solely for myself (I cannot speak on behalf of other wiki editors, though I imagine they might say something similar), some points to consider:
1) No-one has convinced me that "Ivan is a bad guy", nor that he is "trivial", in fact by reading around I have begun to find his story quite fascinating
2) I was/am planning to expand the article considerably over time, to try as far as possible to fairly and accurately represent an honest portrait through the sources. This would/will include his business, political and charitable activities, as well as the alcoholism, suicide attempts etc - set in context. If you study the article's history you will see that I have made a number of edits recently that try to provide more balance.
3) I requested that you be patient because I/we cannot necessarily do this with very great speed - the article will need to be built up slowly and carefully.
4) As has been noted and repeatedly stated, you have a significant conflict of interest which means you will view the article in a particular way. For example you state that the ICA section reduces Massow to a quote that calls him a pillock, whereas I see a section that gives a picture of Massow making some negative comments about contemporary art, someone making a reply, and then a perspective from Massow on why he said what he said.
5) I think it is great that you are prepared to find sources for your statements about Massow's history, but, especially because of your conflict of interest, you cannot expect editors to just take all your statements at face value, without investigation. And that investigation takes time. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokes. I'll back off now and let you do your thing. Thank you for listening and please be assured that while i respect ivan - i'm a massive lefty myself and a political scientist and former political writer for Asian afairs - i just didn't like what someone had done to him.

Stay well and if i don't hear from you before have a lovely and I hope sunny weekend (I'm not even sure if you are in the uk - maybe it's always sunny where you are).


--LisaThorne (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the following-Ivan wouldn't mind you including anything you mentioned - even the alcoholism if its set in context -, I couldn't believe it. Why are we writing a article about someone and letting the subject,and the subjects friend decide what should be in the article and what is not? Is that not a huge conflict of interest? I'm sorry that the article isn't all praise and glory,like the subject and Lisa Thirne want, but guess what? Life isn't perfect,and you cannot write an article and only include the positive things and not the negatives. Unbelievable.--BeckiGreen (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were just expressing their views; it didn't corrupt how the article was written. Sometimes people close to the subject can offer the most helpful insights; as long as the conflict of interest doesn't get in the way, it can be beneficial. I subsequently did quite a lot of work on the article, and tried to give a balanced a view as possible. There's still a lot to be done, but I have other areas of interest, so without other editors getting involved, not much has happened for a while. I keep meaning to return to it, but it's not an easy article to write, as sources are not wholly consistent with regards to certain basic facts. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Teeman, Tim (16 June 2009). "Ivan Massow: the never-ending Tory". The Times.
  2. ^ "Tory adviser defects to Labour". BBC News. 2 August 2000.
  3. ^ "Ivan Massow: Gay abandon". BBC News. 2 August 2000.
  4. ^ "Ivan Massow joins race to be Mayor of London". LondonSE1. 20 April 2004.
  5. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/862806.stm[
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivan_Massow&oldid=1215785808"