Talk:Ron Dennis

Personal Life

Shouldn't there be a bit about his personal life too?

Does anyone have a source for Frank Williams' accident being a factor in Honda adding support to McLaren, considering that the crash was over a year before the deal was done?

MartinUK 18:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been stated by Sir Frank himself in interviews. When I have another free afternoon I will try to get a reference for you. Peter Graham White (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no citation found about him being a "Committed Christian", I would request it be taken down. I've never heard of this or seen any information on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.100.183 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i don't know much about Wikipedia changes, so i don't want to mess up anyone page. However, I watched an interview of Ron Dennis yesterday, that was very informative and concise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh2iQSU9DJE He discusses many aspects of his life and career, including his car accident that nearly claimed his life which could be included on this page. I just thought the people that look after this page would be interested in this to help them expand this article. Cheers. Oz Juice24 (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed section

The section that seems to be a matter of some dispute currently reads:

The FIA World Motor Sport Council stripped the team of their 2007 constructors' points and handed out a US$100 million fine. While the Ferrari management rejoiced at the verdict, many Formula One insiders felt that the evidence that had convicted McLaren was never adequately proven. Similarly, Dennis was vindicated personally; indeed, so keen was he to cooperate with the investigation and protect his own and McLaren's fundamental reputation for integrity, that he personally informed the FIA of new evidence which was ultimately used to convict the team.

Most of this seems pretty POV (and is all unsourced). Ithink that everything after the first sentence on the fine should be stripped out. Narson (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits were reversions of unsourced material - plain and simple, per WP:BIO and WP:V. Of course your right though that this too needs to go for being unsourced and also selective choice of events to mention. Mark83 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your edits Mark, sorry if it seemed that way. I agree extra unsourced additions are unhelpful. I just didn't fancy making a bold edit when there have already been reverts. Narson (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No no, I realise you weren't commeting on my edits - I didn't write the section you raise above. I was just explaining that I don't have any "axe to grind" as Peter Graham White put it. i.e. - I fully agree with pro-Dennis unsourced statements being removed in contrast to his belief that I only have an interest in removing anti-Dennis statements.

And just for the record to anyone who reads his edit summary, and as I stated on his talk page "it is against the fundamental Wikipedia principle of assume good faith. ...[I have] no personal, academic or commercial relationship with McLaren Group, Mercedes-Benz or any other related companies -- including employees (Dennis or other)." Anyone who knows my record on Wikipedia, rather than a drive-by judgement and personal attack, knows that I don't edit from a POV position - on this article or any other. Mark83 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record I have unconditionally apologised to Mark83 about this matter. My own feeling is that the robust defense of Dennis's integrity should remain, but that it should be made clear that he himself has advanced this view. I have slightly altered the wording to reflect this while adding the contrary position of the FIA president. Complete with what I hope are adequate citations this time. I did it this way because it would seem to me that the first part of the paragraph would make no sense as a statement of fact (without citations) if it were to be followed with a properly referenced contrary argument. This is a controversy which is and will remain part of Dennis's life. As such it would seem appropriate to include the matter in the biography. Peter Graham White (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120710091014/http://www.gmb.org.uk/pdf/Posh%20Dosh%20for%20Posh%20Boys%20Comp.pdf to http://www.gmb.org.uk/pdf/Posh%20Dosh%20for%20Posh%20Boys%20Comp.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=41779&PO=41779
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927032217/http://www.itv.com/formula1/news/2011/3/ron-dennis-given-six-month-driving-ban-1391/ to http://www.itv.com/formula1/news/2011/3/ron-dennis-given-six-month-driving-ban-1391/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ronspeak

Ronspeak wasn’t a thing until someone tried to make it a thing by adding it to Ron Dennis’s Wikipedia article. It’s not encyclopedic and certainly does not deserve a whole section. I understand that it is referenced but that doesn’t make it worthy or inclusion.

Dennis has done a lot of good work for charity yet it seems that it’s barely worth a mention.

Eddie Jordan is know as a village idiot but there is no mention of it in Wikipedia, Max Mosley was widely know as Mad Max but again no mention of it in his Wikipedia entry.

I’m happy to hear other people thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Ronspeak certainly is a thing, as you've conceded yourself it is covered in reliable secondary sources (besides those in the article, it's also been covered by Sky Sports). Thus, it is presumed notable since it has received coverage and is therefore worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. If you believe that Dennis's charity work deserves a larger section, feel free to expand it using reliable secondary sources. As for others, what goes on in those articles has no bearing on what goes on here. If you find sources that cover character traits of Jordan or Mosley, than they can also be discussed. You've called this section "slurs" and "insults" without taking into account that the entire second paragraph (which is larger than the first) is a defence of Ronspeak. On the whole, Wikipedia's coverage of Ronspeak at the moment is quite balanced and certainly not unencyclopedic.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand how Wikipedia works, there is no misunderstanding on my part. This section has been here for years but it shouldn't be here, its unbalance and not notable and it needs to be removed. I said nothing about reliable references, I simply said it was referenced. In my opinion it is badly referenced. Any additional references that you may find to support this inclusion are almost certainly circular and postdate the inclusion into wikipedia. Someone a long time ago has attempted to conjure something into being by editing this Wikipedia article but that doesn't mean it should remain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the IPs attacks on Jordan and Mosley. But, he does have a point when he says that something being referenced doesn't automatically mean it warrants an inclusion. Otherwise Wikipedia articles would be full of gossip and fringe opinion.

I can't access the source cited here on Wiki, but looking at the content on Ron Dennis and based on the sources I found when googling "ron speak", Ronspeak looks like a term coined simply to tease Dennis and whilst there are some sources that call it Ronspeak, this manner of speaking is not unique to Dennis, nor is it refered to as Ronspeak outside of the F1 community.

Therefore, I feel that, in its current form, it falls under WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would suggest changing the opeming paragrapgh of this section to:

"Dennis is renowned for his excessively verbose, evasive and cautious answers to tough questions from Formula One journalists. It started about 1980, when sponsorship started to play a more prominent role in the sport. This style of speaking has been dubbed as "Ronspeak" within the F1 community and the term is further used to describe sentences of unneeded complexity."

I would then suggest changing the heading to something such as "Communication style". This, I feel, would mean the section no longer falls fowl of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
SSSB (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution. Thank you for your suggestion. Would you make the alteration?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk • contribs)

The section does need a few tweaks, but the anon editor is way off in claiming the term is defamatory. It's also wrong to say it's unbalanced. As 5225C points out, there are complimentary elements in the section. I'll rework it. In the meantime, some more references to negate the fiction that the term was dreamt up by a Wikipedia editor:

• He is notorious within F1 circles for his use of tortuous jargon, known as “Ronspeak”, which leans heavily on use of the word “optimise’. James Allen. (September 21, 2016 Wednesday). Ron Dennis: McLaren’s man behind the wheel. FT.com.
• "He is a straight but considered talker, only occasionally lapsing into the management jargon dubbed "Ronspeak" in racing circles." IMON DUKE. (January 18, 2015 Sunday). Winning Formula One was simple: now I'm revving up for a tech race; Ron Dennis secured 17 F1 titles for McLaren. Now he has an even bigger ambition - to take its expertise out of the pits and into FTSE 100 boardrooms. The Sunday Times (London).
• "the phrase 'Ronspeak' describes the business-oriented way in which he speaks during interviews." NICK TOWNSEND. (July 31, 2005, Sunday). Independent on Sunday (London).
• "We have not heard much from the great supremo since his return, which, given his habit of using 10 words where one will do - affectionately known as Ronspeak - is perhaps no bad thing. The appropriate forum, as he might say, to lay bare his thinking will present itself soon enough." KEVIN GARSIDE. (January 25, 2014). Return of Dennis gives Button a timely boost; Formula One British driver considered options but is looking forward to revitalised McLaren. The Independent (London).
• This is a side of Dennis, a shy man whose efforts not to say the wrong thing to journalists occasionally lead him to use a sentence structure so convoluted, and consequently opaque, it has been christened "Ronspeak", that the average Formula One supporter simply never sees. Richard Rae. (March 2, 2008). Driven to the end. The Sunday Times (London).
• "McLaren chief Ron Dennis is renowned for giving excessively businesslike and cautious answers to tough questions. Try these for starters: "Nobody came out of Indianapolis with anything positive and perpetuating the negatives was clearly not constructive to Formula One." Or: "Our computer simulation said a second and third was possible, based on our Friday dry running. The race win was never at any stage predicted by our system." Or: "But from our perspective, and we are not hiding from our inadequacies, it is statistically not borne out that we have huge reliability problems because if that was the case we would not have won 10 races." Dennis's style of speech is so legendary within the pit lane it has even been given its own name "Ronspeak". (June 15, 2007 Friday). Nobody can wheel and deal better than this Ron Manager. The Evening Standard (London).
• "With a reputation for being controlling, Dennis likes to joke that, though his wife calls him an obsessive compulsive, he just has an eye for detail. Motor-racing commentators identify this as over-analysis, and have credited him with the invention of "Ronspeak". He has been mocked for talking "like a Dalek" and making overly complex statements" Viv Groskop. (May 3, 2007 Thursday). g2: Arts: Visual art: Is British art being driven in the right direction?: The Arts Council is lending works by some of the nation's greatest artists to the McLaren formula one team. Viv Groskop reports. The Guardian.
• "Dennis is a stickler for smart dress, self-discipline and courtesy. A former mechanic for the Brabham team, he perhaps over-compensates for his humble roots in the sport by a love of corporate language and technical terminology affectionately termed Ronspeak. But there was no doubting his sincerity last weekend in the paddock at Silverstone, when he came close to tears in defence wof his team and the values it espouses." Andrew Baker. (July 14, 2007 Saturday). MOTORSPORT McLaren's image on the line. The Daily Telegraph

Mark83 (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I welcome your thoughts. I think many of the (older) references that you mention are worthy of inclusion. I am concerned that some of the newer references are simply including what they find in this wikipedia article. I really don't think it warrants more that a short sentence and I certainly don't think it deserve a whole section dedicated to it. I have no idea if Ron Dennis thinks it is affectionate or not, personally I wouldn't like it. I think it is defamatory (it is damaging the good reputation of someone) and unbalanced in the context of everything that Ron Dennis has achieved and done. Thank you to everyone who has address my concerns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Haven't read anything here except the start of the opening statement, so apologies if anything I add now is redundant. But with regard to "Ronspeak wasn’t a thing until someone tried to make it a thing by adding it to Ron Dennis’s Wikipedia article" – that is absolute rubbish. Ronspeak was very much a thing in the Mika Hakkinen era at McLaren, actually the Senna era too. Dennis wouldn't just talk up his car and drivers through Ronspeak, he'd tackle F1 rule makers, scrutineers and competitors with it too. The phrase was used in the media, and journalists like Nigel Roebuck would offer translations when things got overly Ronspeaky. JG66 (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is absolute rubbish? I find that a bit insulting. It's my opinion, you may disagree with it and I might be wrong. I would appreciate it if you read the rest of my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk) 18 August 2021 12:28 (UTC)

IP while we have a policy of WP:civility here and don't allow personal attacks, JG66's comment seems fine. Opinions are one things although you should only be sharing opinions relating to improving Wikipedia. But if you're going to make factual claims, like "Ronspeak wasn’t a thing until someone tried to make it a thing by adding it to Ron Dennis’s Wikipedia article", then you should expect to be challenged robustly if your claims are not supported by the sources. If you find it insulting to have your unsupported claims challenged robustly, then I don't think we can help you much here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(Intended to edit my comment but given the post below will add this as a follow up.) JG66 did not in any way comment on you personally, all they did was bluntly say your comment was wrong. I personally have no idea who is right, since although I did used to follow formula 1 including before Wikipedia, I never paid that much attention to anything beyond the qualifying, races and post each press conferences. However if their statements are true, then your statement does seem inaccurate, or bluntly, wrong. Note that even though we may not have invented or had a significantly role in propagating "Ronspeaks", it could still be WP:UNDUE for us to go into too much detail depending on the level of coverage. In other words, there may still be merit to discuss our coverage on the issue. However it always helps if editors are careful not to make inaccurate claims which confuse the discussion since these can mislead other editors less familiar with the situation, and also lead to asides like this over the accuracy of the comments. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to improve wikipedia, that is all I am interested in. I would be very surprised if any 'traditional' encyclopaedia has a section on 'Ronspeak' in it which is why in my opinion it is not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Secondly I am suggesting that references which are dated after it was included in wikipedia are not reliable because they could well have been influenced by what is here in wikipedia (I suspect but I have no reference for my claim). I have to confess I didn't expect any challenge at all, I am completely baffled by the emotional response that I have provoked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe JG66 was attacking your assertion that "Ronspeak wasn’t a thing until someone tried to make it a thing by adding it to Ron Dennis’s Wikipedia article" which is demonstrably false, rather than your opinions regarding the section as a whole. Both sources originally in the article were from 2007, and as shown above the term has been used since at least as early as July 2005. A quick check of the article history will show that there was no mention of Ronspeak until July 2006, nearly a year later. It's impossible for it to have been an invention of Wikipedia. The term has been consistently used by the media over an extended period of time and a Google search turns up many community sources (e.g. Reddit and forum archives) that discuss Ronspeak. It's not an invention and it has clearly received sustained and deliberate coverage. It might not be exclusive to Dennis, but sources have found it an important enough piece of his character to explicitly discuss it and give it its own name. Therefore I do not see how an argument can be advanced against its inclusion. I am satisfied with the section as it stands now.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(Sorry I have conflicted with an edit). Nobody outside a very small circle of people within F1 would have any idea that some people referred to Ron Dennis's mode of speech as Ronspeak until it was added to his wikipedia article. As I said above (which has been rejected as an invalid argument), I know Max Mosley was referred to as Mad Max, I can find multiple published references and yet I wouldn't for a moment suggest that wikipedia adds a section for it or even references it in the entry on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk • contribs)

Here's the key difference - my search results above are from reliable sources such as The Sunday Times, The Independent and The Guardian discussing a trait in Dennis' management and leadership style. When I did a news search for "Mad Max" Mosley, the results were largely from The Daily Star, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The News of the World and The Sun - not reliable sources. Mark83 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I find https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/mad-max-s-fury-puts-f1-on-knife-edge-1722315.html, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crown-prince-of-bahrain-bars-max-mosley-over-nazi-prostitute-claim-mbhlvckhrfb and https://twitter.com/ScarbsTech/status/961330321160654848 (Formula 1's own tech correspondent) But that's not really my point. My point is these sorts of things are not note worthy in an encyclopaedia. As an aside (although I do not necessarily disagree with you) who is to say that The Daily Star, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The News of the World and The Sun a not reliable sources?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deprecated sources Mark83 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, interestingly the Mirror is not deprecated. So hypothetically (given that it can be referenced with reliable sources) would you support the inclusion of a section called Mad Max on the Max Mosley article? Would you support a couple of paragraphs being woven into the body of the article on Max Mosley about his Mad Max nickname? I personally would oppose it much in the same way that I oppose the inclusion of Ronspeak in this entry on Ron Dennis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t read what the term “Mad Max” is about, so I could not comment. We’re discussing the inclusion of text in this article, for which there are reliable sources. I think I have made my views clear and don’t wish to spend time restating them. I don’t want to be dismissive but we’re going round in circles here. Mark83 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"inclusion of text in this article, for which there are reliable sources" This simply isn't true, there is a single reference to a magazine article that nobody has produced for inspection, we have no idea if it is quoted correctly or reliable. Would you (or anyone else on wikipedia) permit me to make changes to the entry to improve it or is every edit I make going to be reverted? I don't want to waste my time on something if my contribution is not welcome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want, I can replace it with a source from Skysports, Autosport or several other reliable websites.
SSSB (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I accept the current reference (I understand that wikipedia does not place a greater weight on online references) but it would be better if an additional online reference could be found. However I strongly believe that any such reference should predate when the reference to ronspeak was added to this entry (most later references are simply rehashing this wikipedia entry). I still feel that in it current form it is given undue weight. At the end of the day it is just a lazy insult. I am frustrated that the owners of this entry refuse to comprise (apart from the section heading) or accept any of my points. I am told I will be banned if I attempt to make any further changes myself. I just do not understand why it is so important to keep this insulting text in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.177.54.56 (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You bemoan the fact that no one is accepting your points or explain why the text should remain. Despite the fact that multiple editors have patiently explained why they disagree and why the text should remain! Mark83 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You also keep insisting that this section is some sort of insult when the second paragraph, the longest part of the section, is not only a defence of Dennis's style but praise of it. Please explain how and why this is an insult. [I]t has clearly received sustained and deliberate coverage [...] sources have found it an important enough piece of his character to explicitly discuss it and give it its own name. In the interests of a comprehensive article it should remain. As is.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I see no indication that Ron Dennis sees is as a tribute or a compliment. As an other editor has pointed out that, it seems to be used as a way of teasing Ron Dennis, I agree. Montoya was teased for being fat, you can find references on the BBC and yet it's not included in his wikipedia entry, tell me why not? Would you support an inclusion into the Montoya article about his waistline?

This is not a comprehensive article would you support and permit me to add well sourced information to it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.177.54.56 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I have added more references and tweaked the language. To address your point above "no indication that Ron Dennis sees is as a tribute or a compliment". That's irrelevant. Donald Trump's article says a lot of things that he wouldn't like, but they're verifiable and relevant to a full description of the man. Mark83 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark83 I appreciate it that you have added sources to the section. I think the section is better for them. I concede that my concerns are being addressed. I'd like to move on now and focus on what can be done to improve the article (maybe even get it recognised as a good article) 89.177.54.56 (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate this, thank you. The section was under-referenced and is better for your raising of concerns and engaging in debate. And my review of sources also indentified an error - the F1 Racing article was 2006 not 2007. An honest mistake, but bad when it was the only source we had and for such a long time. Mark83 (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Dennis (spouse)

In the right hand column (below photo) in the list of information, under Spouse it states "died 2008" I think this should be divorced 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.151.243 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing out the error. DH85868993 (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)