Talk:Colin McRae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Colin's co-driver in early years

Can someone verify Colin co-driver from years 1993-1996? I know that Alison Hamilton was his co-driver in 1992, Grist since 1997, but I'm not sure about the gap... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maggot666PL (talk • contribs).

McRae was co-driven by Derek Ringer from the 1987 RAC Rally to the 1996 Rallye Catalunya (see RallyBase profile for more information). Prolog 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me quickly. Now it's complete. Maggot666PL 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1999?

Someone is constantly changing the year Colin won the WRC title... Is it one person with dynamic IP? Maggot666PL 14:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been confirmed by sky news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.112.37 (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

colin is dead let him rest in piece and not update this page ever again.

Why does it say "was" before he has been confirmed as dead. Please lets keep Wikipedia factual. ResearchUK 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I did keep it factual. I updated the page as further, substantiated, confirmation came in. Plus, linguistically, was is the correct usage. Even if he wasn't, he wouldn't be at that current moment, therefore was (past-tense) is the correct word. I couldn't exactly put "is on board" could I. "Might have been onboard" is just obfuscation. VonBlade 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RFPP time methinks. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Already done. --Golbez 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotta say it doesn't look good.

But until it's confirmed...

Golbez, how am i causing a riot? purely airing my thoughts. better not air my thoughts about you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeness (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The point was, vandalism happens, there's no point in making an emotional talk page post about it every time it happens. That will just raise tempers. --Golbez 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems to be confirmed: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article2461339.ece

RIP.
It's not confirmed until the police say so; this won't happen until later in the day according to the BBC and AFP. —Neuropedia 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed from "was killed" to "is thought to have been killed" in Personal life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.181.139 (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In my view it has well in truly been confirmed. The current absence of direct police confirmation doesn't make it any less factual. Confirmation from his agent and the overwhelming anecdotal evidence should be more than sufficient evidence to word it as simply "was killed". Riph 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Colin McRae's Helicoper (G-CBHL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proxima74 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Civil Aviation Authority: Aircraft Register (G-CBHL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proxima74 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I reckon take down the things about him been killed until they do formal indentification and confirm that on of the people that has died is Colin or not.

[edit] Sources?

The Scotsman newspaper are saying he had died. His agent has confirmed he was in the helecopter at the time, and his official site has been taken down, probably at the request of his agent also. http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=1483222007 Mandonkey 11:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strathclyde police have stated that there will be no identification until tomorrow morning, so any source cited is surely just speculative journalism? Readro 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust the London Times, so I think this is sufficient. --Golbez 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
But the Times are contradicting what the police have said. Readro 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
i was trying to say the same, but Golbez deleted my comment. bbc news 24 said the same thing, the victims won't be confirmed until tomorrow (sunday).Geeness 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Pay attention to the history, I didn't touch your comment. --Golbez 21:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
in the section above?? yeah, it was definitely you. why so high and mighty? i'm tending to believe the strathclyde police here, rather than london times, due to the fact the police are a bit closer to the accident than the paper. Geeness 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, sorry. I thought you meant the second comment you made; I thought it had been removed by someone else. I think the history is being wonky. I'm not trying to get away from my initial deletion, I admit at least to that one. =p --Golbez 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks, lmao! Geeness 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
And the Strathclyde police haven't said a single thing contradicting the Times, so I dunno how you can believe one over the other. --Golbez 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
i was just saying i'm more inclined to believe the police, cos really, it WILL be them that confirms everything, at the end of the day (and i don't read the times! or any newspaper, for that matter).
The Times article quotes McRae's agent, who confirmed that he was the pilot. Police have said there were no survivors.Richard B 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, are we sure he's dead? If we're not, then we should remove the "death status" from the page. --KaragouniS 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He's been removed from the recent deaths page by an admin who has instructed people not to add him until verification takes place. He should not be listed dead until identification tomorrow. Readro 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Many sources are saying that he has died, but more are saying that it is unknown if he is dead or not. It's kind of hard to know which sources to trust at the moment. I'll admit it doesnt look good, but we dont actually know for sure if he is dead.

like i said, best to believe the Police! Geeness 21:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Afterall, Strathclyde police know more details about the crash than any news source. I think that the page should take all out references to his death, and shouldnt be updated until it is confirmed.

The page shouldn't be updated until he has been confirmed as dead.

The police and BBC are both saying that there won't be a formal ID until tomorrow. Colin McRae's page isn't saying anything. Perhaps the page should be changed to say something along the lines of "A helicopter came down close to his property, it is suspected Colin McRae may have been on-board" or something like that? When the identification is done then any information about his death can be added. Fact not supposition. --81.107.39.205 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the Times article referred to now quotes McRae's agent, confirming that he was the pilot. The times article leads "THE former rally driving champion Colin McRae was killed...". That's a usually reliable source stating that he has been killed. Richard B 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's going to be a bit embarrassing for the Sunday Times tomorrow if it's wrong. I presume the story's gone to press as it has tomorrow's dateline. JRawle (Talk) 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because the Times says that he has died doesnt make it true. Nothing is confirmed, so we cant go ahead and say he has died. Once again I would like to ask if all references to his death are removed until it is officially confirmed. Everything being said so far is just speculation.
I could turn that around and say that just because the police say it, doesn't mean it's true. We have a highly reputable source saying something, and no remotely reputable source is challenging it. We also have the reputable source of McRae's own agent saying he was on the helicopter, which police confirm had no survivors. --Golbez 21:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, The Times is not right 100% of the time. Until the police actually release information I suggest that it be left as "suspected to be on board" "thought to be on board" as that is what the vast majority of sources are saying. Once the police release information I have no opposition to that being added. Personally I suspect it is him, but at the moment that's just supposition. (3rd attempt since I got edit conflicts the last 2 times I tried to add this >_< ) --Tethran 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
My comment was intended to be neutral. It's just that I hope the Times is embarassed. JRawle (Talk) 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because the police haven't released names doesn't mean they haven't told the Times. Sure, there won't be a formal identification until tomorrow, but they will have told the press, on a non-attributable basis, the details of who is dead Duke of Whitstable 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

THat may be, but as of yet it is still yet to be officially confirmed.
In addition it's is NOT the police who have told The Times. The Times quote "his agent" and there is always the possibility of a mistake. Granted, it seems likely that McRae was onboard, but until there's a statement from the police it should be left as "suspected" or similar. --Tethran 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it seems likely that this was Colin McRae, but searches reveal mixed results. The Times Online piece confirms two deaths, one of whom they claim is McRae, Channel 4 state it was just one death, and do not name names. It seems the Times may have created the article as a speculative piece so that they have something for the morning papers (note the date is quoted as the 16th, not the 15th, at the top of the page). Until it is confirmed by a second news outlet from a second source (not necessarily the police), I believe McRae is alive as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Seivad 22:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are all giving the police some kind of special power that they just do not have, the police cannot decide if someone is dead or not! You are waiting for official confirmation from the police. What if someone blew their head off in front of you, would you think they are still alive until the police confirm they are dead? If the facts support it then you can call someone dead, there is no law about this, The facts are 100% clear as day in this case, his wife was driven home by police escort and all the neighbors were outside the house greiving as one report has put it.

Not saying we should wait for the police, but we need at least two reliable and non-conflicting sources I think. Seivad 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
And I've already posted about a half dozen sources which state "thought to be dead", "suspected", "agent says", etc. Since they don't conflict with each other go with those. This is not giving the police special powers to pronounce if someone is dead or not but whilst there is still uncertainty within the media the police are going to be the ones that provide certainty and reliable information. --Tethran 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freeze?

Is it possible to freeze the page from changes overnight? Police say they aren't going to confirm anything until tommorow, and people keep changing between dead and alive because of the timesonline article. Until police confirm he is dead, we should keep his status as alive, otherwise it's just speculation. CDowns 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You want Requests for page protection. Sam Blacketer 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's only done a total switch back to 'alive' once; if it continues then that may be grounds for a full protect. I obviously won't be the one to do it, but nor will I fight over it. Also, only the police can speak facts? So if his wife said he was dead, that would be only speculation? What about his agent? Oh wait... he already did. --Golbez 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
<after edit conflict> Except that we have a usually reliable source claiming that he is indeed dead. Why should we pick, say, the BBC (who are not confirming anything) over the Sunday Times (who have spoken to his agent) for sources? Do we prevent sources from the Times in other wikipedia articles. No - that's just silly. Richard B 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Urgh. We also have a usually reliable source saying that it will not be confirmed until tomorrow. Wait until then. Until then the Times article is referenced and it says it is suspected he's dead or something similar to that. Until there is official verifiable, factual information it should stay as "suspected" with the link to the Times for people that want to make up their own minds. --Tethran 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I just find it surprising that no one else has reported his death. When it's concerning someone's death, I'd rather be on the cautious side. We're not going to get any brownie points for adding his death to the article immediately, so I'd much rather wait for a formal identification. Readro 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should be fully protected until the Police or his family announce officially his death. Until then, everything we add about his death will be just pure speculation. --KaragouniS 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats what i've been trying to say, but thus far I have been ignored. I know it looks bad, but nothing is confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.198.161 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6996860.stm , http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/09/15/mcrae.crash/ , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/15/ncopter115.xml , http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482017&in_page_id=1770 , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482017&in_page_id=1770 , http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2170269,00.html
Notice how all of them say things like "feared dead" or "his agent has said..." or "suspected". That is how it needs to be until the police, coroner or similar officially releases information --Tethran 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This news report confirms he is dead - but I would not add it yet, it seems strange only one is saying it. Also, I have heard on TV that the police are saying nobody survived, and Colin's agent confirmed he was on board. 2+2=5 for the time being. — jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


No, the most reliable source you will find on this are jounalists who are franticly puting the story together and speaking to everyone they can to determine who was on the Helicopter. Of course 100% it is him, all the police are doing is following the rules that are in place for incidents such as this. Even if someone decpitated themselves in front of 300 witnesses the police still would not confirm the facts until the family has been informed.

If the times are saying McRae is dead then McRae is dead, RIP. The police are the least reliable source at the moment strange as that seems.

Sorry. But there's a difference between "reliability" and "speed". The police want to make sure that it is him, and whilst it seems very likely that this is the case the fact that they want to absolutely confirm it makes them the most reliable source. I strongly suspect the journalists are correct but I'm sure we can all wait until tommorrow before calling him dead officially. --Tethran 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. It does look bad, but we still dont know for sure.

ALso, i noticed that some segments of the article have been changes to a past-tense. Could someone fix this up until everything is confirmed?

[edit] Impreza Picture

"won in this Impreza" cant be right because a No. 1 Impreza must be from the 1996 season when he was reigning champion. I believe his 1995 title winning car was No. 4

[edit] A couple of other things the article might want to mention

Terrible news if true. A couple of possible omissions from the article which folks might want to look at:

  • Colin Macrae R4 performance car. News sources are available on Google for this car designed by Macrae intended to be on sale next year.
  • Calling time on his rallying career. [This article http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13260890,00.html] at Sky is dated today saying he has called it a day. I don't know if this is a horrible coincidence or if it's an old article that Sky have merely updated today.

--kingboyk 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sky News article is probably from December 2004, as it resembles this by Scotland on Sunday, and McRae was not really in contention for a Ford seat for 2008. Prolog 04:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Section re: Colin Mcrae R4 added - most of the text lifted from: http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/vehicles/road/cars/colin_mcrae_r4.html although I am unsure how to cite this on wikipedia (this is my first wiki contribution. The comment about the Ford Ka door is entirely my own opinion having seen the car close-up at Goodwood in 2006. Johnpsanderson 14:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not suitable for flying?

Listening to the video it says "locals say it was not suitable for flying" or words to that effect. Until I hear something from an expert who can say that I think that the information being added about it is irrelevant and inflammatory as it suggests McRae was at fault when this may well not be the case. Seriously. I have no problem with that being added when a news source says "xxx an expert in the field says that conditions were not suited to this particular type of helicopter" but just locals saying that he shouldn't have been flying? --Tethran 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless locals are aviators then they can merely speculate. Readro 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Which is the point I'm trying to make so surely that quote should be removed from the page as it's out of context and speculation at this point. --Tethran 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, absolutely. Readro 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Nsudac 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Death"

Alright, it seems some of us beleive he has died, and some of us beleive that although it is likely that he is died, it is yet to be confirmed.

At the risk of making fools of ourselves, we should leave the article as it is, not refering to the fact he is dead yet. Face it, if it turns out he is dead, then those of us who think he may not be will look stupid, and if he isnt dead, those of us who are saying he is dead will look just as stupid. Can we just stop the discussion and leave the article as it is, for the time being?

Also, R.I.P if all this is true.

Leave it with it saying he's "strongly suspected to be dead" or something like that. Then no-one ends up looking like fools because we're right either way. --Tethran 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, god forbid anyone looks stupid. That really is the big picture on this one.

I said that in response to what was already said. Going with the wikipedia guidelines I do believe it should be left until there is official confirmation. Elsewhere I've already said my personal feelings on what's happened. But Wikipedia is somewhere for neutrality not an outpouring of grief. --Tethran 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky News has just said 4 people have been confirmed dead but no confirmation of who is dead is expected to be announced this evening. — jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's bits and pieces like this that are why it's protected as it is... With information coming in we're now at 1, 2, 3 or 4 people. I've heard all of those from difference sources so they're all conflicting with each other... It should be cleared up tomorrow when the police report on it. --Tethran 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If he wasn't dead we'd know by now, the police would have contacted him or he would have made it clear to the press he is alive. Use common sense people, he's dead. This is a sad day for motor racing.

--Robnubis 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Steele McRae, MBE (5 August 1968–15 September 2007)

We don't know for sure he is dead yet. Referring to him as deceased is nothing short of sick and whover is responsible ought to be ashamed.

We've already established that, and the page has gone become fully locked.
I wouldn't call it 'sick'. And yes, he is dead. Rest in Peace Colin.Outsid3r 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full protection

There has been too much reverting, some of it with the edit summaries IN FULL CAPS, on this page. Formal identification of the two people who died in the helicopter crash is not expected until the morning, and the fact that some news sources have 'jumped the gun' does not provide the reliability which Wikipedia expects. I have put the page under full protection. All editors are encouraged to discuss changes on the talk page. Unprotection can be requested at this page. Sam Blacketer 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming what some people have been saying for a while about Wikipedia's standards for reliability with regards the information available on this. --Tethran 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, sometimes people tend to forget that this place is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site. Colin is one of my favorite rally idols and I really hope he's still alive.--KaragouniS 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} (rm tag - no longer necessary ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
I would request that consistency be exercised here. The article is protected on the basis that edits constituted speculation, yet the lead speculates that he was killed. I am happy for the article to remain as it is, but would it not be more appropriate to deal in fact; stating that a helicopter registered to McRae crashed, killing all on board, but that the victims have not been formally identified. Coupled with the sources, it would enable the reader to conclude from that what they wish. BeL1EveR 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Aye. I'd be happy for it to state the facts that have been officially released - about the helicopter being registered to him, all on it being dead and that the victims have not been identified yet. It agrees with, AFAIK, every news report so far. --Tethran 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Formal identification or not, we have one site quoting McRae's agent saying he is dead, and zero sites saying he is alive, with the rest being non-committal. I appreciate that the consensus of WPans and most news sources are that we don't know for sure, but 10 out of 10 cats^H^H^H^H^H sources that expressed a preference are saying he's dead. My "vote" would be to indicate this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness2702 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate the agent story has some weight, if it were true that his agent said this, you would assume that would form the basis of a confirmation? In the sense that all media outlets would accept his agent's assertion that "he is dead" as confirmation, and report accordingly? BeL1EveR 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the BBC article just FYI for when confirmation arrives. SGGH speak! 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As of 7:35pm EST, CNN & TSN are reporting that he has been killed. It does appear that the status of his young son is unknown.

Yeah, but these are mere mortal news sources. Haven't you heard that only the police - certainly not the family members - can ever truly say if someone is dead? (yes i'm bitter) --Golbez 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line..I've been a rally fan for 15+ years and I'm sad and discouraged by this news -- but I agree until we know the absolute truth--we should just pray for him and his family and friends.--microbunny 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not the job of the police to determine when someone is dead or not. You know someone is dead when, well, when they die!! The only person who can legally declare someone dead is the coronor. But, we are not looking for a legal confirmation of someones death here. We are only looking for some reliable confirmation that he is dead and to be quite frank we have got that in spades. It is pretty obvious to anyone with any size brain that Colin McRae was killed in the crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Easy, easy....no need to go nuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbunny (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

who's going nuts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
FFS. People still seem to be missing the point even after it's been said by an admin/mod. "Formal identification of the two people who died in the helicopter crash is not expected until the morning, and the fact that some news sources have 'jumped the gun' does not provide the reliability which Wikipedia expects." End of. --Tethran 23:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just cause a wiki mod says something--doesn't make it so!! The telegraph is reporting that both McRaes agent and brother have said he was piloting the helicopter.

Also--wikipedia has multiple errors and other inaccurate info in a wide variety of articles so please don't get all crazy and claim wikipedia 'expects reliability'...don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining..

His brother has confirmed that it was indeed Colin in the crash, his brothers confirmation is at the root of the times story as this is the source of the agent. All i am saying is that here should not have to be official confirmation from the police if there is evidence from other sources. i.e. if a well known celeb was killed in front of 5000 witnesses would you still wait 2 days for a coronors report to suggest they were dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with above comment!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbunny (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From the BBC: "Strathclyde Police said Colin McRae, a keen pilot, is thought to have been on board with three others." "......There are no survivors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Emphasis on "though to have been on board". Please wait until official confirmation, per WP:NOT#CBALL... i.e., no speculation. Also, please refrain from personal attacks and insults. Thanks, --Madchester 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me!!! What are you talking about personal attacks and insults ?
What is an official confirmation? His brother has said he was the pilot - is that not classed as official confirmation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks?? man there are too many sensitive people on here--stop crying and grow a spine!! oh wait...wiki-mods are always right!! And no, I'm not being a wise-ass I'm just sick of being told what I can/cant say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbunny (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Madchester - what are you talking about - how dare you send me a message RE: personal attacks?? Please explain where i have made a personal attack on anyone? I want an apology from you now please. If you want an personal attack however i am happy to oblige.... Take that stick out of your ass!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So this is the reply i got from Madchester: "Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Madchester 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"
So this place is utter joke - who do you think you are Madchester and can you please show me where i have made any personal attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

'Anyone that takes themselves too seriously doesn't understand how to include themselves in their own criticism. Then they end up becoming a parody of themselves.'--Microbunny 01:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"It is pretty obvious to anyone with any size brain that Colin McRae was killed in the crash." Is not a personal attack - it was not directed at anyone in particular, it was not directed at anyone at all. It is a phrase, a common phrase at that. It simply means that it does not take a genius to work it out.
Telling you to get the stick out of your ass may actually be a personal attack, but to be honest after your stupid warning you deserved it. So an apology will be acceptable and i will then drop it.

I want an apology too. I also got a message..albeit worded politely..but I'm still annoyed with your assertion--Microbunny 01:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First hit on a google search for Colin McRae - The Scotsman Newspaper "Rally ace Colin McRae dies in helicopter crash"

http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=1483222007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


I want an apology too....I didnt swear, I didnt insult anyones race, creed, sex, religion..etc.. I dont believe anyone, including myself, did anything to warrant that comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Wikipedia is written by lots of different individuals. There's no mechanism for the site as a whole to come forward and say "I'm sorry". If you feel an apology is in order, then ask for one from the person you believe wronged you. But a general plea is too untargeted to have any effect. --Cyde Weys 01:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, In this case they are not General pleas, they are actually directed at user: Madchester who seems to have got his knickers in a twist about something and is publicly accusing people of being insulting when they are not.

[edit] Page unprotected

The page has been unprotected as an admin has decided enough sources are available for CM's death to be added to the article (see edit summary) Duke of Whitstable 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but this still may be wrong. I hope he might still be alive. PayneXKiller 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i hope Elvis is still alive dude but i am pretty much resigned to that fact he is not. I think the same can be said of Mr McRae, RIP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin McRae is deader than Steve Fossett. They actually have the body on hand. --Cyde Weys 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation on death

his ID has not been confirmed so you can't say he is dead - anyway this is a breaking new story shouldn't wikinews be covering this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.220.138 (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He flew helicopters. He owned the helicopter. His agent says he was flying the helicopter. And most important for a celebrity, he hasn't turned up anywhere saying "I'm not dead, really." At this point, the only way he's alive is if his death was intentionally faked. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Police have confirmed he owned the helicopter, but believe he was on board. Until it's verified that he actually was on board, it's unfair to all to simply assume he's dead, and present that as canonical fact. — Neuropedia 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We work by sources. If several reliable sources say that he is dead based on the information they have, the confirmations from his brother and his agent etc, then we can consider him dead too, as long as we don't give the reader the false idea that the police has too confirmed his death. I don't really care either way. We should concentrate on improving the article rather than arguing about something that won't make much difference soon. Prolog 05:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
One reliable source, from what I've seen (The Times' website) has said he's dead; all others say "maybe", "thought to be", "believed", etc. What's the harm in protecting and waiting until the facts are in? — Neuropedia 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the harm in continuing to work on the article while more facts are coming in? Why do you want to close it down to editing? --Cyde Weys 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt there are many more facts to come in beyond the undoubtedly inevitable confirmation that McRae and his son were actually on board, but until then, I was simply looking to have the previous protection re-instated to stop edits going overboard. Wikipedia still deals in fact, yes? —Neuropedia 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, look at the edits in the last 30 minutes: conflicting information, a "recent death" header with the 'death' date rescinded from the first paragraph; a reversion to a posture of the current situation rather than extrapolation, and then protection until later - say, this afternoon? - would halt this back-and-forth editing. —Neuropedia 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You're describing the same editing pattern that happens with all of our current events articles. What's the big deal? --Cyde Weys 06:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the quality of the article goes down as people edit the article in an irresponsible manner. If policing such changes irks administrators, I don't see the point in continuing. Ho hum. If that's the status quo, I really don't have the energy to rock the boat. —Neuropedia 06:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly it has become no better than any of the 24-hour rolling news channels who have a schedule to fill and are clamouring to be first - speculation, reporting of unverified scoops as facts, disrespectful behaviour. Well, I'm sure there will be plenty more people who will not come to Wikipedia looking for facts in future. Halsteadk 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Why, because we were right? What was disrespectful, reporting what news sources and family friends were saying? What exactly was done that was wrong? --Golbez 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
At the time the article was reporting based on the Times's report alone, whereas all other sources were saying "believed" or not even implicating McRae was involved - there were no other sources claiming he'd died. It is not past any newspaper to make up quotes, or mistakenly speak to someone claiming to be his agent or whoever - given that no-one else was saying the same thing they MIGHT have been wrong. It was not verifiable, it should not have been presented here as fact. Assuming the BBC is correct that it was officially announced at 1255BST ([1]) it should not have been written here as fact until at least 1255BST. Halsteadk 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
When people start getting hysterical over an issue, making arguments like "you can't say he's dead yet" even when there is no rational way for him to still be alive, and then saying they're disappointed in Wikipedia and threatening to leave, it's best to just ignore them. --Cyde Weys 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to my comments, I did not threaten to leave, merely that I would cease policing the article in an attempt to retain a rational and currently factual viewpoint on the article. Please do not attempt to introduce hysteria and over-reaction where there was none. —Neuropedia 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin McRae, Britain’s first world rally champion who died in a helicopter crash yesterday, will be remembered as one of the most spectacular drivers this country has produced.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article2461738.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.115.67 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rally driver Colin McRae is believed to be among four people killed in a helicopter crash near his country home.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1284286,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.115.67 (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Official confirmation of his death is still awaited, but his agent Jean-Eric Freudiger told The Times that McRae had been piloting the helicopter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/6997241.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.115.67 (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6997270.stm just released the names of those suspected to be aboard. 86.154.95.98 12:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being a bit overzealous

Guys, it's at times like this that I really cringe at how overeager some Wikipedia editors are. The minute something happens you're all there frantically changing everything in the article into the past tense, even though a definitive confirmation of his death from an official figure has yet to be announced. Haven't you got anything better to be doing with your mornings? To protect the integrity of Wikipedia we shouldn't be claiming people have died until we've received official confirmation, otherwise it's just irresponsible, pure and simple.

We don't worship the police here. --Golbez 11:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The police are the people on the ground investigating this, so their official statement is the only one that can have any weight. All other evidence is circumstantial, although unfortunately very highly probably. It's nothing to do with worshipping the police. Riedquat 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
All other evidence outside the police is circumstantial? So if his wife said he was dead, we'd say to her face, "Yeah, but you can't be sure."? --Golbez 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That is starting to sound rather callous, but yes, unless she said that the police had told her he definitely is, or she has seen and identified his body by herself. If a helicopter crashes you can't say for sure any particular individual is dead until you've identified the bodies. The chain of events is makes it very highly probably that he is dead, but there has been no definitive evidence (rather like the circumstances that'll still have people from WWI listed as "missing in action"). --Riedquat 12:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is most unseemly. The poor man's body isn't even cold. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news service. Primary sources are required, and ultimately there are very few people know what actually happened (most newspaper reports are simply re-iterations of news wire reports, which probably all come from the same source). We have a tradition in these parts of letting families bury their dead before publishing obituaries. -- Anonymous user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.68.118 (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above from 83.67.68.118. The article is still full of past tense - it should be reverted to sometime before the crash was announced, and then what we know as FACTUALLY, VERIFIABLE information only included. We are NOT here to be the first to break news and should not be responding to individual newspapers stories. Frankly the way some editors are behaving writing edit summaries like "deads are not married" is leaving me with the sort of sour taste in my mouth that makes me wonder if I want to be part of this community. Halsteadk 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can't be 100% sure until it's formally confirmed. That's blindingly obvious. His wife says he was on board but you can't sit there and tell me that you know 100% that he's dead until formal identification has taken place. There's a remote possibility that he chose not to fly with the others and play a round of golf out of mobile phone reach. Unlikely I know, but you can see what I'm saying. Wikipedia is supposed to be an authoritative and definitive source of information, not a load of opinions cobbled together based on probabilities and likelyhoods. 86.158.150.89 12:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think things are getting silly to be honest. It is clear there is a definite ongoing edit war going on and administrators need to start getting involved to sort this mess out, I have seen people being blocked and pages fully locked for much less than this in the past. --tgheretford (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Administrators such as Golbez should be stripped of their privileges for making flipping comments like "We don't worship the police here". In fact, I'm going to escalate this. 86.158.150.89 12:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please cite the rule that I broke. --Golbez 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea if you've broken a "rule", but as an administrator you should be contributing positively to discussions rather than making idiotic unhelpful remarks. 86.158.150.89 12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
More unhelpful than basically saying "the widow couldn't possibly know if her husband is dead"? --Golbez 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I said nobody could possibly know with 100% confidence that he's dead. It's about the integrity of information on Wikipedia. That IS helpful because it's telling you that people shouldn't be changing pages in this way without the full facts. Stop trying to bring his wife into this as some kind of emotional lever. Of course I wouldn't walk up to her and say "how can you be sure?", but Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and unemotive. 86.158.150.89 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Its actually got little to do with whether the poor man is or isn't dead. Its to do with the distasteful way in which some Wikipedia editors rush to be the 'first' to make these changes. A discrete period of mourning should feature as part of Wikipedia policy, during which entries are not updated in this piecemeal manner. For goodness sake the family could be reading this as part of their mourning process and will be really upset to read all of this. Give it a rest. 83.67.68.118 12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you hand the same admonishment to The Times for reporting he'd died? --Golbez 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The Times is led by editorial opinion and is far from a factual guide. Wikipedia is supposed to be definitive. 86.158.150.89 12:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't my point. It was said Wikipedia shouldn't rush, but why shouldn't everyone else get the same admonishment? --Golbez 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The Times is just The Sun with a different font. Just because The Times raced to get a scoop does not mean we should follow suit. Halsteadk 12:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The Times is a newspaper, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. There is a difference; the former are well-known for innaccuracies, the latter are relied upon for factual correctness. Encyclopedias should take the long -term considered view, and not rush to judgements. Would you want Wikipedia to be compared with the tabloid press? Unfortunately Wikipedia is regularly failing this test. 83.67.68.118 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Unlike The Times, wikipedia is an encylopedia. We all know he is dead, but we really should wait for more sources saying he is officially dead. John Hayestalk 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
For example the Sunday Times this morning said he was dead (no "believed"). This would have been printed yesterday evening when the story was first coming out, so they would have had to take an educated guess. John Hayestalk 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For all the evident furore, it remains a seemingly stable article since yesterday, for all I can see. Okay, so we're aware that an exceedingly significant piece of McRae related news has suddenly emerged, as well as that here was one individual afforded an immense degree of affection by so many of us in these kind of communities - as demonstrated by the BBC News article of the story rapidly becoming its most read. I'm sympathetic that people are wishing this story to be documented. It did make me think, that if he did happen to actually be alive in the aftermath of such a fiasco that entailed such a reputable source as The Times rapidly emblazoning the definitive claim of his death on their website front page, then... well, out of sensitivity let's not say too much more. I'll keep an eye on the article but now the stated sentiments of the police seem to be more closely matching the claims of the article. Although yes, of course like some I am a bit saddened by some people's urgencies here on Wikipedia to seize upon a opportunity to report an event of such morbid gravity as a death, for the sake of it being exactly that, with someone. Seriously, I would personally describe myself as one of the less assertive Wikipedia editors but, even if this just be said as some kind of moral point, it is seriously depressing news.

As if any more need existed to further the cause of reliable and verified reporting here on Wikipedia, closer scrutiny of some of the rapidly generated further press articles commemorating him actually are leading me to suspect that the all the relevant discerning professionals really are trusting long-standing Wikipedia edits to this article, some of them mine, as a source of information. The declaration that he finished in second the championship in the years 1996, 1997 and 2001, and third in 1998, for one thing are not easy to casually retrieve from anywhere else despite a few BBC News articles seemingly making use of the phrasing. Even so, though, all such debates here may prove a slight moot point as this story becomes more established and advanced, and the initial shock begins to wear. MRacer 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely you can't claim someone is dead until it's officially confirmed, no matter how likely it is? I was very sad to hear this news and I admit the chances of him being alive are very slim but surely unless it's absolutely clear he's dead it shouldn't be in the article? 86.135.254.241 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia works at all. Keep in mind there are many hostile governments that would never confirm certain deaths because it is disadvantageous to them. Should we not talk about Chinese dissidents died merely because the Communist government of China refuses to acknowledge that it happened? Should we just go and delete Tiananmen Square? We do not have a policy of waiting for "official" confirmation on anything. All we have a policy on is using verifiable sources, and when Colin McRae's death was added to the article, there was already at least one source that was confirming that he had died. What transpired with the editing on this article isn't nearly as outrageous as you seem to think. And stop claiming that the government is the end all, be all decider of truth. --Cyde Weys 13:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Um no, at the original time this article showed him as having died (yesterday evening) there was one source claiming that; all others were saying "believed" or not saying anything at all. I don't believe that substantially changed until around 1pm today. To go with the one source over the others and present it as fact, regardless of how obvious it may have been, is not how Wikipedia works either. Our job is to present known verifiable facts, not interpret them. Halsteadk 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see none of this has had any effect. Some idiot has added the date of death now and semi-protected the page. What's the point of having a discussion page if the valid and overwhelming arguments therein are completely ignored? It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.150.89 (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmation of Death

It has been reported on many news websites now that the police have confirmed his death and his website is just a black screen so that should be the last of the argument that's going on in here.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1284286,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6997270.stm http://www.colinmcrae.com/

My condolences go out to both of the families.

Doyley 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

I think it should be changed. The police has not identified the bodies yet so it has not been officially confirmed that McRae is dead. --Norum 13:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a source stating unequivocally, "the police confirmed McRae was dead." What more do you people want?? --Golbez 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As Golbez said above, we do not worship the police here. The math is pretty simple — four people, including Colin McRae, get on a helicopter, then it crashes and everyone dies. We don't need to wait on specific identification of which body is his to know that he is dead. The probability that he is dead is very very high, and thus the probability that we would need to rewrite the article to reflect him not being dead is very very low. Thus, it makes sense to talk about his death. --Cyde Weys 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're slightly missing the point of what Wikipedia is about.... It's an encyclopedia, not mouthpiece for whatever conclusion you've jumped to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.150.89 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Who said anything about "worshipping" the police? In this country, when a fatal accident occurs, the police and other relevant bodies - in this case, the Air Accident Investigation Branch of the Department of Transport - investigate. They are the ones who will officially identify and publish the names of the victims. The circumstances of the crash were such that immediate identification of the victims was impossible, and even now the police are still saying they "believe" or "thought" McRae was on board. No police members have officially confirmed McRae was on the helicopter ... Strathclyde Police released the names of the four people they thought were on board the crashed aircraft on Saturday ... "We believe that the group were just returning from a visit to the nearby village of Quarter around 1605 hours yesterday, when it appears that the helicopter got into difficulty and crashed within the grounds of Mr McRae's family home," Chief Superintendent Tim Love of Lanarkshire police said in the statement. "Although a post mortem has still to take place, the four involved are believed to be: Mr Colin McRae (39) of Jerviswood House and his son Johnny Gavin McRae, aged 5." ... I'm not saying don't say McRae is dead — that is now an inevitability, and McRae's family's recently made statement to the effect that he and his son are dead means there's no hope it's wrong — merely that the facts should have been documented as they currently stood, not as they would be in a few hours when the formal identification of the victims would be thought to be complete (and now it will not happen for a few days, apparently), and frankly I'm rather appalled at the attitude of Wikipedia administrators to this event and the differing opinions of editors' methods of presenting the data. Being told by an administrator that "we do not worship the police", "Colin McRae is deader than Steve Fossett", "Why, because we were right?", "Would you hand the same admonishment to The Times for reporting he'd died? ", is not the way things should be done around here. The simple fact remains that a single, unverifiable source was used to "confirm" the death long before it should have been done — I'm sorry but I do not believe those outside the UK understand that The Times is no longer the bastion of truth and unbiased reporting it is still perceived as in some places; its ownership by News International, and thus by proxy Rupert Murdoch, have turned it more into an upper-class version of The Sun rather than a pillar of impartial reporting. It should also be pointed out that The Times' report was by one reporter on their website, and not printed in their paper. When a single journalist can influence the definitive nature of Wikipedia, something is very wrong. —Neuropedia 16:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And how wrong is it when we go by the family? --Golbez 23:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I give up. You clearly have no clue how things work in the UK. —Neuropedia 23:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Then fortunately, Wikipedia is not in the UK. If we did everything as was done in the place the story was about, we wouldn't even have an article on Tiananmen Square. However, I do see your point. --Golbez 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, the fact that administrators said these things is irrelevant, unless they used their administrator powers in saying them. I did not. I did a logical semi-protect of the article, and I made a small format edit when it was unprotected. Apart from that, my administrator abilities have not been used, so I don't see why you feel the need to bring them up. --Golbez 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been officially confirmed by the police, check the above links. You don't need a body to say somebody is dead. Doyley 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

When someone's official website says they are dead, I don't think there's any cause to doubt it Nsudac 14:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think his OFFICIAL website says Colin McRae MBE 1968 - 2007???? Wikipedia editors are stupid at times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.4.128 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It says it now. It didn't say it this morning. 86.158.150.89 16:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
To quote [2], "Formal identification is expected in the next few days." That means the police cannot confirm that Colin is dead yet. So Golbez, "We have a source stating unequivocally, "the police confirmed McRae was dead."" would seem slightly odd, would it not? Alexrushfear 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Odd? Maybe, you may want to take that up with the editors of IOL. However, note the word "formal". It's possible they did an informal identification, having his wife identify the body but not taking dental records or whatever. It seems clear his family thinks his dead, which is bloody good enough for me, and it's bloody good enough for wikipedia. --Golbez 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard is reliable and verifiable sources, and this policy serves us in all instances, regardless of location. Public "officials" may (or may not) qualify as a reliable and verifiable source. However, officials aren't the only reliable/verifiable sources available. Indeed, so long as a source satisifies these two conditions, then it's sufficient to include it in an article (unless, of course, other reliable and verifiable sources indicate otherwise). With this understanding, it's easy to see why we don't have to necessarily wait for an official police report to add death-related information to this article. In this instance, other reliable and verifiable sources exist. Cheers, Rklawton 00:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding unhagiographic, but does no-one else think that the real tragedy here is not the demise of an adult indulging in his passion for machines, but that he had to take along his young son of only five years and, even worse, his son's friend? Did those children have the capability to choose to risk their lives when they boarded his helicopter? Were young Ben Porcelli's parents aware that he was going on a helicopter ride and had they consented? --Oscar Bravo 09:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All of their deaths are tragedies, and I can tell you when I was five I would have jumped at the chance to ride in a helicopter (still would actually). You seem to equate helicopters with something like extreme sports, when a much higher percentage of drivers die in car accidents than flyers die in helicopters. Also that's some pretty wild speculation that he didn't have the parents consent.Mad031683 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links

Hello. I'm unable to edit English version of this article, but as I know, this is a complete list of the interwiki links of this article in right order:

id:Colin McRae ca:Colin McRae cs:Colin McRae de:Colin McRae en:Colin McRae es:Colin McRae fr:Colin McRae gl:Colin McRae hr:Colin McRae it:Colin McRae lv:Kolins Makrejs hu:Colin Mcrae nl:Colin McRae ja:コリン・マクレー no:Colin McRae pl:Colin McRae pt:Colin McRae fi:Colin McRae sv:Colin McRae tr:Colin McRae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.186.55 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Golbez 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muppets

Jesus wept, can you lot just hold back for a few moments? Every time anyone famous dies, it's like a race to be the first to change "is" to "was" in the first line; it's quite possibly the least appealing aspect of Wikipedia. If you want to go and work in a breaking news room, go and do it, or at least decamp to Wikinews. But this isn't the place. 81.154.130.237 15:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please sir, tell us when the proper time is so we can set a clock. One hour after death? A day? Should we keep false information up for a week? --Golbez 16:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad someone else agrees with what appears to be the few of us who wish for decency in addition to reliability on Wikipedia. —Neuropedia 16:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has received a lot of positive press specifically for our ability to stay on top of breaking stories. So long as we hold to our reliability and verifiability standards, I don't care if someone changes "is" to "was" two seconds after the fact. In fact, I think that's great! Conversely, I think it sucks when folks simply post speculation and rumor. Rklawton 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that people were transposing 'is' for 'was' before, not after the fact, when every news source bar one was saying nothing was confirmed, and controls weren't in place for long enough to curb that. —Neuropedia 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The number of people who say it before it's been confirmed though is slightly alarming. I must have reverted about 10 people today. mattbuck 16:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I'm totally furious about right now, is that someone - either before or after the crash - appears to have completely oversimplified and ruined the vitally important middle second of the article, completely obliterating much of the readable and interesting prose and greater minutinae on McRae's career that was once there. It is blatantly obvious to which extent this was not threatening to become even a remotely overloaded article, and hence to such end all the aforementioned articulate prose desperately needed to be there... Let us use this time, as we should any time, to launch a genuine major improvement drive. MRacer 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just go back to a version you liked and copy/paste the text into the current version. It only takes a few clicks, and all is right again. Rklawton 20:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Father's statement

I think his father's statement is a pretty big confirmation. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6997270.stm) // fadedx 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, he's not a member of the police, how could he possibly know his son is dead? --Golbez 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement from his father wasn't until 4.30pm you idiot. People were changing his Wikipedia article in the early morning before ANYONE knew for certain. THAT'S the point. I really can't believe someone as stupid as you is allowed to administrate on this site. I suspect you're probably confused about that as well. 195.99.220.2 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Golbez was being sarcastic; cf the above discussions between Golbez and myself about whether or not a formal identification from the investigating police officers should be required before "officially" stating in the article that McRae was dead. Not very good at being sarcastic, is he? :) —Neuropedia 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I know he's being sarcastic. I was hammering the point home because he was still making out like he was in the right. 195.99.220.2 10:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think they'd let his family know before the media. // fadedx 10:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article ordering/merging?

At present the article is ordered like so:

1 Biography
1.1 WRC
1.2 Personal life
1.3 Death
2 WRC victories
3 Colin McRae Rally
4 References
5 External links

It seems odd to go from reading about his death, to seeing a table about his WRC victories when there's already a comprehensive section about his WRC career at section 1.1. Just a thought that section 2 and 1.1 should be merged in some way? Pullshapes 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now it's more logical, based on Burns' art layout. --Maggot -- [ talk ] 22:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It makes no sense to have WRC in "Biography". Looking at Michael Schumacher, it goes into racing career, then biography. Split them completely, put biography after if you want. I just tried that. --Golbez 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

I see the Scottish nationalists are out in force again. This poor man dies and some of you are more bothered about preventing a Scot being called British. Apparently now it matters that McRae called himself Scottish and not British - proof of his precise political viewpoint aside, it's an interesting argument: from today I, born and raised in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, subject of Her Britannic Majesty, would like to be referred to as Mongolian. But I digress. You don't refer to Germans or Spaniards in terms of which region they were born - how many Wikipedians are listed as Galicians, or Thuringians? Or indeed, Aquitainians, Texans or Tuscans? Perhaps we should ask for a copy of McRae's Scottish passport to end this matter once and for all. No, wait an minu........ Leave your petty politics at the door, Wikipedians. 62.25.106.209 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. However, I will concede that Scottish should be listed in lieu of British when someone takes me to the Scottish embassy in Washington, DC, and shows me the pictures of the Scottish Ambassador to the US, and the Scottish Head of State. I have no problem, however, saying someone is of Scottish ancestry, and is from Scotland. But they are British citizens, and citizenship is what we list as Nationality. - BillCJ 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"Texan" was probably a bad example, as those born and raised in Texas often refer to themselves as "Texans." Rklawton 17:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's not, because we don't have the Texas Flag and "Texas" as the nationality for Texans in Wiki articles. And remember, Texas was once an independent country. People can call themselves Texans or Scottish all they want, but please stop confusing that with citizenship or nationality. - BillCJ 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The infobox always seems to be the focus in these rows, and what infobox is it? Template:WRC driver. As such we stick with the FIA nationality, i.e. British. Mark83 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I restored this field to the Infobox as the value was missing... but now I look at the edit history, it seems to be somewhat controversial. It shouldn't be: since Scotland is not an independent country but part of the UK, McRae's nationality was "British". What people believe or not about the desirable status of Scotland is entirely irrelevant: we should use what is the case now, and as of this moment Scotland is part of the UK whether or not people want it to be. Loganberry (Talk) 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a WRC infobox, and they do not recognise Scotland as a country, thus infobox should say British. That he was Scottish is noted in the first sentence of the article. And for people who claim otherwise - this is NOT British nationalism, it's following the conventions of the WRC. mattbuck 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Someone in the edit history mentions football as an example: but that is different, because there the world governing body (FIFA) makes a distinction between England and Scotland. Same goes for cricket and rugby... but not for motorsport. Loganberry (Talk) 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm up to 4 reverts of that in the past 5 hours. In that time there have apparently been about 12 edits that solely handled his nationality, including one which stated he was Kenyan. mattbuck 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Make that 5. mattbuck 16:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality again

I've reverted to the previous version for two reasons- One is that (as far as I can see from the edit history) the consensus was that he is Scottish and this has only become a contentious issue after his death- which is sickening. Secondly, a sporting organisation cannot rule on someone's nationality. If the infobox says he represents the UK, that would be fine, but nationality is not an issue for a sporting body. Newspapers etc. in the UK use "Scottish" as a valid term for nationality. Macrae is a person first, a driver second. Please remember that. Lurker (said · done) 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That he is Scottish is noted in the first line. I'm sorry, but while we use a WRC infobox, we should use WRC standards and practices - namely, that however much people might wish otherwise - Scotland is not a country by FIA standards. And from what i can see, consensus is for British flag. Would putting British followed by Scotland in brackets appease you? mattbuck 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make false claims of consensus, it is clear from the edit history and this talk page that there is not a consensus on this issue. Lurker (said · done) 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the word "nationality" a term that cannot be defined by a sporting body. I've changed it to say that he was a Scot (as it is what he considered to be his nationality, and how media sources tend to describe him) but represented the UK in competition. Lurker (said · done) 16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S I'm not sure about the two flags in the infobox, but I think the best option certainly is to have both terms listed. Lurker (said · done) 16:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've already tried to put Scotland in brackets, alas, it was reverted in the blink of an eye and the argument started up again. It's just not possible to please some people. I say if this carries on, we just leave the nationality line blank. There's more important things to get up tight about than the poor guy's nationality. Pullshapes 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Richard Burns page & WRC infobox has an England flag and always has and theres no arguments there for a Union Jack. I say it should be a Scotland flag as it had been for a long time before the tragic events of saturday. scancoaches 18:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I like Lurker's idea, except can we change just one thing and convert the British bit into <ref></ref> form so the infobox doesn't look so crowded. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 06:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That would lead to more edit warring, I'm afraid as there are those who would object to not having "British" as a nationality (the argument that Scottish implies British doesn't work with those people). Experience from other articles shows that including both is the best way to calm down the edit warring. You could always try it, unless there are objections on the page, but i don't hold much hope. Generally, coming to consensus and avoiding an edit war is a higher priority than a crowded infobox. Of course, the real problem is one with the infobox- it could avoid the word "nationality" altogether and use something indicating that this is the country the driver represents in competitions. Lurker (said · done) 09:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lurker that this whole problem stems from the use (abuse) of the word "nationality". Some people seem to like using it as a synonym for citizenship, which is only one of its meanings, and a subsidiary one at that. It is utterly preposterous to try to claim that a mere sports governing body can determine a person's nationality. Nationality is an attribute of a member of a nation, and we have many good references stating that McRae was Scottish (per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY). If it were not so tragic then it would be laughable that somehow the FIA could eradicate English or Scottish nationality. Some people really ought to read up on this topic: Statism.

When a Scot becomes notable through kicking a football, or designing bridges, or being a senior lawyer, or founding a major organisation, or riding a bicycle very fast then we here at Wikipedia describe them as Scottish. But one WikiProject thinks that they can simply, unlitarerally, obliterate a person's nationality the moment they sit behind a car's driving wheel or jump on a motorcycle. I find it hard to express the depth of my contempt for such narrow-mindedness, especially as it is being used to target a recently deceased man who always chose to fly his own national flag: the flag of Scotland. Since when did the FIA become a world authority on the complex topic of an individual's nationality?--Mais oui! 08:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mais oui!, you are either deliberately misrepresenting the views of others or being very ignorant of the matter at hand. Join the debate any time you see fit, but join the debate. 62.25.106.209 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Mais oui! is making a valid point- that the FIA does not determine nationality. Your comment, on the other hand, doesn't contribute anything and reads like a personal attack. Why don't you join the debate? Lurker (said · done) 12:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, join the debate? I started it!!!! Mais oui!'s point is largely diminished by the usual tool of ignoring ALL evidence that opposes his view, not just that which is erroneous. Yes, it is true that the FIA is not an authority on these matters. But would you or he care to show the the Scottish seat at the UN, EU, NATO, OECD, IMF et al? No, did't think so. Show me a Scottish passport then. No? Ambassador? Head of State? And AGAIN, how many people are listed as Galicians, Thuringians, Aquitainians, Texans or Tuscans? None. McRae was British in nationality and citizenship; his ETHNICITY was Scottish. You know, just like one can be English and British. Oh, and by the way, according to Wikipedians (affiliated infoboxes aside): Andy Murray = Scottish, Tim Henman = British; David Coulthard = Scottish, Lewis Hamilton = British; how convenient for the Scots!! 62.25.106.209 12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"... join the debate"?!? Ho ho ho. That from an ip address that has just casually added the adjectives "bigoted" and "homophobic" to the biography of a Conservative MP, in blatant breach of official Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. You will be very lucky not to get banned at that rate. Mais oui! 12:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I expect you to withdraw your remark immediately. Can you read? If so, read the box at the top of this page:
After you've finished, 1) apologise; and 2) learn how to research. Or you might get banned for falsely accusing another user of inappropriate editing.
62.25.106.209 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Suddenly gone quiet. And I note that Mais Oui has form in this area. 195.92.40.49 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (My IP switches between this and that above).
Typical ip behaviour. "Suddenly gone all quiet": grow up. Some of us have better things to do than troll around the internet. You may want to read Wikipedia: Why get an account?
I have a great distaste for ip-warriors. If you want to get taken at all seriously (especially in Talk page discussions) you must get an account. And you can cut the shouting too. Mais oui! 13:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Try doing what others do: check an IP page before you throw around the accusations. Don't try and cover up the fact you made a slur, insinuating that I was a bigot. According to people like you anyone without an account is a troll and any change by an anon is vandalism: how convenient. 195.92.40.49 15:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think people are getting to wound up by the FIA thing, they have no control over someone's nationality, but on the other hand it is not possible to have Scottish Nationality (just as little as it is possible to have English nationality). There is no nation of Scotland, every citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is British, and is listed as such on their passport. It mentions in the first line that he was Scottish (thereby being from Scotland), there is no disputing that, but his nationality must be British. John Hayestalk 14:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Note how some editors constantly argue the FIA point but ignore the UN, EU etc point, or passport point, or that regarding the head of state. 195.92.40.49 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's been misunderstood that the FIA have this control over a driver nationality, let's just get one thing straight: They don't. The FIA recognize both the racing license and passport the racing driver is currently in possession of, and neither can be Scottish as we all know. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia detail

Without wishing to raise my head over the parapet of flaming that may still be remaining for the late McRae, can I please question as to whether the inclusion of the 'copters registration (G-CBHL) is simply trivia and recentism and should be removed? Thanks Dutpar 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it relevant to an article on him? It would be relevant to an article on Registrations of crashed helicopters, it would probably be relevant to an article on Colin McRae Crash Helicopter, possibly on Colin McRae Helicopter Crash, but not to Colin McRae. John Hayestalk 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry, you wanted it removed too. I misunderstood. I will request an edit. John Hayestalk 15:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned Misplaced Random Comments

"Versions 04 and now 2005 have brought an extremely arcade rally driving experience to gamers."

Most "gamers" would agree the Colin McRae games are leening more on the simulation side than the arcade side...

-- Colin McRae is the second-most successful World Rally Championship driver of all time after Carlos Sainz and no w he's sadly not with us and will be missed

comments moved to the comments section 198.6.46.11 19:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any chance someone can find a better picture?

The one on the page is blurry and not very good. Someone must have a better one that can be used 198.6.46.11 19:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The earlier one featuring the die-cast car seemed to be the most viscerally attractive for this encyclopedia, but alas, I suspect that was removed on account of it not being a strictly 'free' and usable image for whatever reason. Sadly, I'm not too sure how we can source a better one by now. MRacer —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I went trough flickr and was unable to find a free licensed photo that was not a copyvio :( --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The disgraceful edit-warring on this article is a shameful indictment on our community. Fully protected for 48 hours. Please be sure to resolve this silly argument before the protection ends so that we do not see a repeat of this unedifying dispute. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely there is a concensus suggested by the barrage of edits, though, contrary to what was argued, ie. that both asserted nationalities are perfectly relevant and should be formally stated. By this concensus, any editor only accepting one and not the other could only be accused of unreasonable partiality anyway. An encyclopedia article is there to assert and include everything of relevance, after all. Whatever has been stopping every single one of us accepting an entry in that field just in the following format:- "Flag of the United Kingdom British (Flag of Scotland Scottish [or English, Welsh etc.])" for all rally driver Britons with infoboxes on this encyclopedia? It has a predecent. It is a practice which websites like Crash.net have diplomatically adopted in the past when presenting all Britons on championship points tables etc., and as far as I recall even the flags shown on the side rear windows of the rally cars showed confusion over this same issue a lot of the time (eg. McRae, Burns, Grist etc. I could've sworn have tended to have Union Jacks represent them as well as the alternative flags). MRacer 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it still lacks base. These things have all grown out of our desire to prevent total "online-wars" instead of being based on facts or guidelines. I would also like to point out that if this concerned any other country in the world besides the UK (a large part of en.w's userbase) then we would not be so considerate. Scotland is not a sovereign nation as recognized by the United Nations, or by a majority of the nations embodied in the United Nations (i.e. the case of Taiwan). There is no such thing as a Scottish nationality. There is no such thing as a Scottish passport. That some sporting bodies have recognized otherwise for the sole reason as to have any numerable amount of nations to have competition with at all, is cool and relevant within those sports (and related articles) alone. It does not apply here. "He considered himself to be of scottish nationality" is totally irrelevant for establishing nationality, though a perfect little tidbit for the first paragraph if he was a fanatic about it. That is my opinion as a total outsider in this discussion and as a resident of a fellow EU member country. All in all, 62.25.106.209 is simply totally right. You can argue what you want, but it's not a country. It's a ::territory of Great Britain with a high level of self government and a high desire of becoming a nation in it's own and nothing more. Those are the facts. we can only discuss how "considerate" we wanna be towards the people who want their own countries. Now please stop bickering and start caring about hunger in Darfur or something, instead.
P.S. personally, I like facts in my infoboxes, and "being considerate" in lead sections, and the latter with as few repeats as possible. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Just as much as Richard Burns should be British (not English), or Georg Hackl German (not Bavarian) or Iban Mayo Spanish (not Basque) John Hayestalk 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with having the page in the same format as Damon Hill's or Nigel Mansell's - the first line says British blah blah blah from England..and nationality - British. Colin McRae's page should be exactly the same, both British and Scottish in the first line, and for nationality British.Sennen goroshi 15:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. McRae was British, as was Burns, as is Coulthard, Hamilton Henman, Murray et al. There is just no basis for arguing this: it is not opinion, it is a simple fact. McRae's Scottish ethnicity can be featured prominently in addition to this indisputable fact. And before the point is made again, I hope one day that Wikipedia will enforce this sensible rule universally to British figures and institutions at some point in the future: everyone and anyone with a British passport is British in citizenship and nationality. Ethnicity is separate; there are clear Wiki guidelines for the latter. 86.17.211.191 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd first like to apologise for my conduct earlier in reverting edits to this article. However, I still feel that his nationality is British. People whose nationality would be Scottish would be ones who lived before the act of union was passed. However, since then, the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been the nation, regardless of where someone was born in the land. To say that his nationality was Scottish would be akin to saying that George W Bush's nationality is Texan. I don't doubt that he raced with the Scottish colours on his car, but Scotland is not a nation in itself anymore, and that has to be recognised by the article.
Also, infoboxes must be clear and concise, and keep with the structure of other infoboxes on the subject. The WRC, run by the FIA, recognised McRae's nationality as British, not Scottish. As stated above, he WAS British. That is what should be stated in the infobox. That he was Scottish is currently stated in the first line of the article, and that I feel is fair. mattbuck 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Distinguish Nation from Country. Just change the field to country in the infobox and it won't leave any place for discussion. -- Maggot -- [ talk ] 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Not so simple. Country is not a valid field in Template:WRC driver, and it shouldn't be changed just for one example, certainly not without consensus. John Hayestalk 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Represented country would fit. Now seeing Scottish inf field "nationaly" IS correct. I know what I'm talking about - my country, Poland, disappeared from Europe's maps for a century. Does it mean Poles ceased to exist then? Who am I then? As I said, country is one thing, nationaly - another. And it'strue, that YOU know your nationality (of course, you need to have roots, you can't suddenly say you're Martian or else) and you don't need a passport to prove it. And no one can change it.
Right now people insisting on keeping Scottish flag are right. Maybe in results, stats, etc., there should be a Brit flag, but clearly not in field under "nationality". --Maggot -- [ talk ] 11:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree, no-one is disputing his scottish roots, or ethnicity, but his nationality, in the strictest sense of the word, remains British. I would argue that yes, Poles did not suddenly cease to exist, but they were still citizens of Germany or the USSR, and would have had those nationalities. John Hayestalk 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all - not Germany, but Kingdom of Prussia and not USSR, but Russian Empire. Secondly - definition of nationality. So no, they'd still be Poles (and thus they were). Occupated Poles didn't share roots with occupant, thus they weren't a nation. And that's my point. Nationality is something completely different than just matter of a country you live in, or even are citizen of. -- Maggot -- [ talk ] 13:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies I thought you were refering to the 20th Century. I disagree with you, nationality is entirely a matter of the country are a citizen of (or ones relatives were citizens of, in cases of dual-nationality).John Hayestalk 14:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Take the case of an ethnic German living in Danzig or Breslau, they are still citizen of Poland, and have Polish nationality. John Hayestalk 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you refer to Polish (established by Poles in Poland, around 10th century) using German names (Gdańsk, not Danzig and Wrocław, not Breslau)? And what about Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? One country, two nations. I'd compare it to UK, since it unites multiple nations in one country (and those are nations with history of independence, so nationality is untoubted). -- Maggot :: [ talk ] 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Because I know the german names, not the polish names. And England, Scotland, N. Ireland, Wales and Cornwall are not nations, they are regions of one nation. John Hayestalk 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that this argument is very divisive - I suggest we ask for a broader community opinion. mattbuck 14:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Propose a place for discussion and we could try to achieve consensus. -- Maggot :: [ talk ] 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
George W Bush is not Texan in nationality because Texas is not defined as a country. Scotland is. Not an independent country, but a country nonetheless. See the website of the UK Prime minister [3] which says, in a section called "Countries within a country", The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.. Also, a search on Google news will show news sources using both terms (Scottish and British) being used as valid terms. These are used to indicate nationality, not ethnicity- Black and Asian people in Scotland are still called Scots, unless by racists (and rest assured anyone saying a black person cannot be a Scot would be seen as a racist). Generally, people of Scottish descent born outside Scotland would not be called Scots (but may be called, for example, "Scottish American" or similar). As the Wikipedia article on Scotland puts it In modern times the word Scot is applied equally to all inhabitants regardless of their ancestral ethnicity, as the nation has a civic, rather than an ethnic or linguistic, orientation.. Naturally, the preceding statements apply to English, Welsh, Irish people etc. Wikipedia should follow accepted usage in this matter- both terms are considered valid and the factor in choosing between them (in the press etc) is often the wishes of the subject. Lurker (said · done) 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This is soooo complicated. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, is tagged as a duck, but acts like a dog, then wtf is it ? As far as I know, only the UK has the "country within a country"-system, and I'm not aware of any countries having recognized this system. All "non-domestic" legalities are handled by the UK, so for everyone not part of the UK, the UK is simply the UK, and not "3 countries with a shared government + a load of islands". So as I said. looking from it NPOV, as we would normally treat every other country within our Wikipedia community i would say, the only point of discussion is: how considerate do we wanna be towards the people of the UK. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ergo, the UK may call it a country, but in my eyes, it's a self governing region of the UK and nothing more. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Colin McRae does not represent Scotland in the World Rally Championship. He represents all of Great Britain. The nationality in the chart is the country he represents in the eyes of the World Rally Championship and nothing more. The text clearly states that the driver is Scottish, so I fail to see how the chart using the British flag is somehow misrepresenting him. Great Britain is the country he comes from, and anything more specific about his origins can be explained in the text of the article, which it already does. This is no different from an American driver having the American flag, then having his article stating he is from Pennsylvania. Having the British flag, which is his internationally recognized representation in the sport, does not somehow claim that he is suddenly "not Scottish." So I fail to see the problem here. The359 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wandering in very late to this, but I'd like to correct out a couple of factual inaccuracies:
  1. Colin McRae did not represent any country in the WRC. He represented himself and his cosmopolitan teams. The (American) Ford Motor Company's (German-based) European operation run their WRC effort out of Cumbria in the north of England, for example. Outside the WRC, McRae drove for Scotland in the 2006 Race of Champions alongside David Coulthard, against (among others) an English team comprising James Thompson and Andy Priaulx.
  2. Contrary to the recollections of User:MRacer at the very top of this section, McRae did not drive with the Union Jack alongside his name. Pictorial evidence can be seen here, here, and here, which incidentally demonstrates co-driver Nicky Grist flying the Welsh flag. I think you'll struggle to find a photo of McRae's name alongside a Union Jack anywhere, especially in a WRC car. His 2004 Le Mans Ferrari had a Union Jack, but not against his name. By contrast Richard Burns used the Union Jack on his Pug, but I don't know if that was always the case with him.
  3. Finally, as pointed out a few days ago by User:Mais oui!, and contrary to a few assertions here and elsewhere, Scotland is a nation. To talk about sovereignty, passports, or foreign embassies does nothing but display an ignorance of how to define nationality, as do comparisons with Texas (a state, I think you'll find). As long as the field in the infobox says "nationality", those answering "Scottish" will remain absolutely correct.
My personal opinion is that I don't see the problem with "Scottish", which is slightly more specific than "British". All Scots are by definition British, though the obverse is not true. So why provide less accurate information than is possible? No-one's saying "put 'Lanark' in there, that's where he's from", because there's no reference to his home town in his career or his cars. Scotland, and the saltire, is another matter. --DeLarge 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Drivers are allowed to use whatever flag they choose on their car. Coulthard's car has a Scottish flag. However any official FIA documents (see, the season entry list) lists him as from Great Britain/United Kingdom (I cannot remember which they specifically use). The FIA recognizes the Super License as being issued by Great Britain/United Kingdom. Scotland cannot hand out Super Licenses because they do not have their own motorsports authority (they are part of the British authority). Because that is the nationality on his license, that is the country he "represents". Teams also have to apply for licenses, and again, Ford was represented by Great Britain/United Kingdom even if they are not actually based there (over half of the F1 grid is based in Britain, but does not race with a British license). Therefore any arguement as to whether or not Scotland is a nation is irrelevent when it pertains to the chart describing McRae's World Rally Championship career. The article text itself already confirms he is Scottish. Listing him as Scottish in his career stats is however incorrect. It would be similar to listing the nationality of an Olympian who competed for the Soviet Union as having the flag of the Russian SFSR in their Olympic career stats, even though no such team ever competed.
And as already pointed out before, what exactly is someone's nationality if that field on the WRC template is NOT meant to represent the country that is recognized by that series? Where the driver was born? Where he lives currently? Where he feels like claiming he is from? For instance, Nelson Angelo Piquet is born in Germany, raised in Monaco, and eventually ended up living in Brazil. Drivers can even change their racing licenses. Stéphane Ortelli was born in France and raced under a French license until he recently decided to switch to Monaco because he resides there. The359 00:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With regards DeLarge's earlier reference to my 'recollections', my apologies for poorly phrasing my earlier, philosophical point, which concerned the universal treatment of the representations of Britons' respective nationalities in general, which, of course, this being an encyclopedia where uniform treatment is required, is the bone of contention. I was grouping those three individuals together as 'Britons' and of course, you are right for example, in that Burns, who by one logic would have been deemed English, had in the past been treated as British according to preferences (although whose preferences, of course, I'm not sure) - as here on his Subaru.MRacer 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
One further point: FIA podium ceremonies show the British flag for all British drivers. They do not show the Scottish, English, Welsh, or any other flags. This is just like the Olympics. The359 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC bio

  • I have added a request for comment on the biographies list. mattbuck 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I contributed early on to a Guideline Proposal for just that sort of thing. Unfortunately most people did not bother helpfully contributing, many just coming along to tribalise and divide the question. If any sensible conclusion came out of it, however, it was that cases of this nature should be judged on their individual merits. --Breadandcheese 03:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not involved in this edit war nor have I ever edited this article. After reading the debate above, I tend to agree with MaisOuis and the others that have expressed views similar to his. Scotland is a "nation"; it's very hard to make a plausible arguement otherwise. This gentleman was from and identified with the nation of Scotland (which, at this point in history happens to be incorporated into a country: the UK). As long as we are going to use the descriptor "nationality" in the info box, Scottish/Scots and the Saltire seem appropriate. --William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A couple more suggested changes

Firstly the info on his sister under his personal life should be removed, it is neither relevant to an article on him, nor is it notable. Secondly "The McRae family have stated that the funeral for Colin and Johnny will take place in private, however a "Service of Celebration", open to the general public, will take place. Further details are expected to be announced about the service in the near future." really needs a source. John Hayestalk 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is taken from Colin's official website, linked in the previous line. Is it really necessary to link/refer to it again? Pullshapes 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest yes. It's not obvious where this info has come from. John Hayestalk 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Reference added. Apologies for editing the article 3 times in order to get the reference coding correct, for anyone who watches the article history like a hawk. Pullshapes 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few things

Hopefully, we can put this sorry Scot-UK mess behind us now and concentrate on the article itself ;-). Anyway, here are a few things I would be interested in doing to the article, mainly convert that table of WRC victories in a complete results table and also move it to the bottom of the article. Also, can someone go through the Reaction section because I may have rushed that so it won't read particularly well.

I'm saying all this because I would like the article to reach GA status, I don't think it would get to FA until we get an agreement on the flag issue, HOWEVER, I don't think anyone wants to go down that road again. ;-). Anyway, further comments and suggestions would be welcome. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 09:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on that new section, by the way I have an idea that might solve the flag issue for good, I will discuss it at the template. John Hayestalk 09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I shall read it with interest. mattbuck 09:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to bring this sore point up again, there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy going on in regards to this. Anyone succesful who is Scottish often gets regarded as British. While this is technically correct, it seems to not be universally applied. Look for instance at the Wiki pages on... Denise Welch, Coleen Nolan, Kerry Katona to name a few. Douglasnicol 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree other articles may also be incorrect, but this discussion is only about this article, other articles don't impact on this, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also none of those are rally drivers, so don't have this template on their pages. John Hayestalk 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It is double standards though, as I remember when McRae died, it wasn't just the infobox that was being edit-warred, it was also the leading paragraph. By the way, I'm not mentioning this because I'm Scots, one of the ones I mentioned, I put in the category of being English, so I'm not trying just to be 'a petty nationalist' as some might say. Douglasnicol 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to claim Kerry Katona as Scottish. --kingboyk (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
All the information's there. That's the important thing. MRacer (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, the one that still puzzles me is Graham Obree, even the film about his life calls him the Flying Scotsman, and he did live in my former home town, but he wasn't even born in Scotland.... :) Douglasnicol (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I sent an email request for this photo --Zureks 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot use that photo - request was rejected. --Zureks 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Humm, you'd think it would be good publicity for them. mattbuck 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also wrote to swrt.com (subaru team) with request. They directed me to Colin McMaster (official photographer, http://www.mcklein-imagedatabase.com/), who unfortunately also turned down my request... --Zureks 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent email to paligap.com who host the official McRae website. Let us cross fingers... Zureks (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebration / Celebration of Life / Commemoration

Whilst the service might have been called "Celebration of life" that doesn't mean we should use it in the section title. We should use whatever is most obvious to the reader, and celebration can only confusing, Celebration of life might be better, but I do think commemoration does best summarise it. John Hayestalk 12:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Celebration of Life" is a commonly-used term for what was traditionally called a "memorial service". I think the simplest and clearest thing to do would be to use the service's title in the section title. Its how the service would would have been referred to in the media, for example. Lurker (said · done) 13:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Commonly-used? I've never heard of it before. Have you got any examples? John Hayestalk 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Google is your friend. It seems to be a very common term, though I'm hardly a tenured profeesor of religion, so I'm no expert in this area. Lurker (said · done) 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Representing Great Britain

I really take exception to this comment that keeps appearing in the first paragraph of this article. To 'represent' a country suggests membership of a team in a country vs country competition. Rallying is an individual competition, as is most forms of motorsport. I've been a diehard rally fan for over 30 years, I've followed Colins career since his first forays into the Scottish forests and I've sat in the British forests at 3am to watch Ari Vatanen go by in a flash of light. Never once have I heard someone say "here comes someone from the British team, Colin McRae". Oh, and Mais-Oui!, I'm Scottish and I do'nt take offence at having 'Scottish' or the Scottish flag in brackets. Please can we leave out the 'represents' bit? This is a subject I do know a bit about!scancoaches 12:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think anyone is trying to "insult Scots", they are just trying to improve the article by following policies and guidelines. John Hayestalk 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the article to say "Scottish", but left out the "represents" bit. This is the closest we can get to restoring the previous consensus without the contentious term. Lurker (said · done) 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colin's crest

I think "Colin's crest" and the associated trophy should be mentioned in the article, but I'm not really sure under which section it would fit. For you that is unfamiliar with Colin's crest, it's a jump during the Swedish Rally made famous by Colin due to his spectacular long jumps, and which is now a memorial trophy given to the driver who makes the longest jump. --217.210.166.50 (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)