Talk:Ayrton Senna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Flag
Portal
 Ayrton Senna is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Ayrton Senna as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian language Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayrton Senna article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives


Discussions with no comments in the past month have been moved to the archive, which you can access from the newly placed archive box on this page. Ham Pastrami 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Some words from the original author

Thank you all for reducing this article into the mess that it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold333 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Schumacher vs. Senna

Sadly, we'll never know who was the superior driver, so I'm removing the claim that Senna was "more talented". --Robert Merkel 07:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Answer : Actually, everybody who saw F1 in the lasts 20 years knows that are a LOT of drivers superiors to Schumacher. Schumacher NEVER used to be "the greatest" nobody called him or gave him this title, but Senna. Even Schumacher himself knows that there's a teacher who teached him how to be cool... how to be agressive... and this one is Senna, I(myself with my own eyes) saw Schumacher in Monaco this year(2007) with a Brazilian flag to honor his idol(Senna), also he takes a LOT of photos to an album, with Berguer, Prost, Pelé, Ronaldo, and some more. There's no answer about "who's faster" i agree, but be fast is not what F1 is all about. F1 is about to be DRIVER and Senna is light years a better driver than Schumacher, and Schumacher himselfs recognize it, only fans can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.138.57 (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


I must agree with Robert Merkel, no true comparison can be made because they where never simultaneously at the pinnacle of their careers in the same car. Schumacher did however win 7 world championships, an achievement even Senna would probably have never reached. Even opinion between drivers who raced against both are divided, so it is a huge error to say everybody knows because a lot will say Schumacher. To say Schumacher knows Senna was the better is ridiculous, and if you do ask anyone in F1 how to win, they will tell you to "be the fastest!" -- User765 19:49, 12 September 2007 (GMT)

"The MP4/8, although one of the front running cars, was considered inferior to the leading Williams FW15C of Prost and Hill, and the Benetton B193 - which used a factory-supplied Ford engine - driven by Michael Schumacher and Riccardo Patrese. [49]" Whether the McLaren MP4/8 or the Benetton B193 was better is highly debatable. The engine is one thing but aerodinamically the McLaren was maybe better and of course it was definitely better on the electronics side, at least until Monaco when Benetton first got their electronic driver aids. And from Silverstone on both teams got the same engine sepc from Ford. Especially in the Donington wet race the fact that McLaren had electronic driver aids and Benetton didn't was probably a big advantage for McLaren, so I don't think the sentence I quoted above is fair or even accurate in suggesting Senna beat a superior Benetton there. In that wet race that Benetton was more than likely pretty much inferior to the McLaren. 78.92.39.54 (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wet weather driving

The photo at the beginning of this section is Ayrton driving in dry conditions. It would make much more sense to have a wet weather photo, notably something from Donington. Conquerer 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Wet weather driving" section should be removed completely. No real sources or anything. Or actually, it should be removed for the exact same reason as on the Michael Schumacher page. It's really kind of funny (looks like favouritism) that on this Senna page the article remains, but is removed on the Schumacher page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be removed, though it could do with better citation and some of the phrases sound a bit "fannish" and could do with re-wording. I don't really think what is or isn't in the Schumacher article has any relevance here though. Kelpin 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why consistency has no relevance?
I think a section would be justified in both articles, both drivers had outstanding drives in the wet. More citation and less hagiography are required, though. -- Ian Dalziel 12:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
My point is that we're not debating the Schumacher article here. If you think its right or wrong for the MS article to feature his wet weather skills then a case needs to be made on the talk page for his article. What we are discussing here is whether the Senna article merits a section on wet weather driving, which I think it does and you presumably think it does. Kelpin 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Where do you suggest we should discuss whether the presentation of the articles should be consistent, then? <G> -- Ian Dalziel 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Here [1] the talk page for the Formula One project. Kelpin 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I shall await your argument for inconsistency there, then, shall I? -- Ian Dalziel 09:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the discussion on adding a rain section to Schumacher's article [2] no one was arguing against one. The issue seemed to be over the quality of the proposed section. Why are you having this argument here? Discuss it on Schumacher's page or better still write a decent first draft of the proposed section. Kelpin 12:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have missed a <G> up the page there. We aren't in disagreement about either article anyway - the only thing I disagreed with was your statement that what is in one article is irrelevant to what should be in another. -- Ian Dalziel 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Greastest of All Times

What's the deal with the "It" instead of he in these quotes, are they actual quotes or have they been translated from English to some other language and back again? I'd correct it, but I'd like someone else to verify. Rajohnas 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The whole swathe of quotes have clearly come from a translation into another language and been translated back using a translation engine. I've deleted them - again. It's a pity in a way, they are genuine and at least some of them probably do merit inclusion, but they would have to be in English! -- Ian Dalziel 09:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested article

I suggest that someone create the article Rivalry between Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna (or similar), merging and moving all related content from Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. This way, you're not duplicating the information or hiding bias on each driver's page. Ham Pastrami 09:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Paragraph of Intro contains verbatim copying of Grandprix.com article

The entire paragraph is made up of sentences which were copied verbatim from this grandprix.com entry on Senna http://grandprix.com/gpe/drv-senayr.html The Dunnie 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone. It had only been there an hour, and it's purple POV anyway. -- Ian Dalziel 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better Introduction

A much better introduction is needed for Ayrton Senna's page, Michael Schumacher and Alain Prost have huge introductions and Senna does not. I think it is a disgrace to his legacy and I find it insulting that no one is bothered to act on this.

Feel free to click on the 'edit' tab at the top of the page and get to it! Or post your suggested words here for others to comment on if you prefer. :) See WP:LEAD for guidance on content and length. Cheers. 4u1e 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leading section revamp

It's been revamped from scratch, please help improving prose, removing pov, adding references (I think there are already in the body of the article). keep layout (all big drivers have more than just one paragraph, you know)... User:C_trillos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.83.202 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As it stands now, it isn't really a lead. Too much detail, and quite a lot of unsourced POV. -- Ian Dalziel 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph is still miles too long. Any Senna experts want to have a go at pruning it by about 75%? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial driver

What on Earth happened to this section considering Senna is the most controversial driver ever?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because it simply repeated, at length, material from the main body of the article, although not always with the same details. I agree Senna was a controversial driver (not necessarily the most controversial driver), and have no objection in his case to the addition of a 'controversy' section (others may not agree, however). If such a section is to be created, the rest of the article needs to be re-written to go with it, which is not a trivial task. 4u1e (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More picture of Senna required

More pictures are needed because the current main picture of Senna is terrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.67.130 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find one that is free to use (which will not be easy), then please go ahead and add it! 4u1e (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suzuka 1989/1990

"In contrast, Prost's more subtle use of an identical strategy to defeat Senna the preceding year was somehow perceived as being justified."

This needs to be toned down. To me - and I think to most - there is a world of difference between the two incidents. Senna drove into Prost in both cases. What Prost did in 1989 - and said beforehand he would do - was refuse to move offline to avoid an accident. Senna admitted afterwards he intentionally drove straight into Prost's car 1n 1990. The 1989 incident was in a relatively slow corner, the 1990 incident was at a potentially lethal speed.

In any case, what we need to be recording here is not your opinion or my opinion or a weasel opinion - that is only OR after all. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken that out, again. There is no way this sentence can stay in without a clarification of who is perceiving that Prost's actions were justified, and some verification of that, and also some clarification of the claimed "identical" nature of the action taken by Prost. Who says his action was "more subtle"? Also, "Somehow" is a weasel word. As it stands, it's just an idea from an editor, and certainly OR. I happen to agree with the statement, but if this article is ever going to be anything like well-written, this kind of thing has to be sorted out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
"As it stands, it's just an idea from an editor, and certainly OR" - rather like the rest of the paragraph and most of the article! I've changed it back, but if you want to stick with the pathetic, wholly unreferenced interpretation you've got at the moment fine. Prosts action in 1989 were deliberate and his action could also have been lethal - sufficient Marshalls have been killed or seriously injured in incidents like this to know that no accident is 'safe'. [[3]] is used as a reference on the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix which might help illuminate opinions of the 1989 incident. The woeful ministrations of Jean-Marie Balestre under the auspices of the FIA throughout 1989 and 1990 seasons combined with Prosts off-track politics were without doubt the major factors in bringing about the 1990 fiasco. Unfortunately the British press went anti-Senna from the moment he vetoed Warwicks chances at Lotus and consequently failed the sport of F1 miserably by standing back in 1989 when they should have been shouting fix! Mighty Antar (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We clearly disagree about the incidents at Suzuka. I repeat, what we need in this article is neither your opinion nor my pathetic opinion. You might consider both WP:OR and WP:CIVIL at this point. [4] might help illuminate, as you say, that there is more than one opinion. Now can we try to achieve some kind of consensus without total reverts? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ian's right, well possibly except about who was at fault (As it happens I was a Prost fan, so my view (i.e. that the events really were quite different) probably isn't entirely unbiased!). No assertions that the events were similar or different should be made without references. About the most we can do otherwise is note that they crashed two years running, and that Senna admitted that the second event was deliberate. The fact that many parts of the rest of the article offer editorial points of view isn't a good reason to add/maintain more. Just my two penn'orth... 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had more than enough of this already. The whole article is a basketcase, and if, when an attempt is made to reduce the amount of editor opinion, we just get into a puerile edit war, I'm out. I have better things to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Here's another free use image at flickr [5]. Royalbroil 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early life

Does anyone have more information on Senna's early life? It could use some expanding. Sage J Callahan 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea i agree i think people need to find more information to improve it Veggiegirl (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad article

The whole thing needs to be rewritten in proper accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies Karpouzi (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I don't think anyone can sum up the energy to tackle it. It's a large subject and one many many people have strongly held views about. 4u1e (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did Ayrton Senna suffer a (temporary) facial paralysis ?

Somebody has put Ayrton Senna's name on the list of famous persons with Bell's Palsy. I see no evidence in this article, and only limited evidence in a Google search. I'll take him off the list until further notice.Power.corrupts (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He had it for some time in 1985, and recovered IIRC. Check out Sid Watkin's autobiography Karpouzi (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thx for prompt reply. I have no access to this doc. Could somebody add a few lines of this event in the main article. Meanwhile I'll put him back on the Bell's list with a fact mark, and a ref to this page. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)