Talk:Juan Manuel Fangio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Pagani

This guy just had the Zonda F named after him

[edit] The Maestro

JMF has (still) the best win% in F1 history. Can somebody confirm he was called "The Maestro"? And add it at List of athletes by nickname? Trekphiler 11:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I think the line "winning the world championship no less than five times..." is antiquated and out of place. It should be replaced with some more encyclopedic. Rtcpenguin

[edit] First paragraph

Just a note by way of explanation about the removal of the line in the first paragraph by user "Ernham". I reverted it once but he keeps changing it back. He's done it to several other articles as well, and engaged in personal attacks on Talk:Michael Schumacher. No doubt it'll be resolved soon enough, if it hasn't been already. Bretonbanquet 04:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope the reference I brought calms down the editor. Mariano(t/c) 09:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
your atricle demonstrates absolutely nothing. first, it nowhere says Fangio was the greatest. Second, it rests its arguemnt that he may have something about him better than schumacher on the grounds that he won 5 WCorld championships in 8 years, which is supposedly better than Schumacher's. But wait-- it's not! Good old BBc logic. Schumacher won 5 WC in FIVE YEARS. Gone.
It's a pitty you didn't take the time to read the article, it's actually good. I really don't know why you are so blindly agressive. If he won 5 championships in 8 years, and 24 races of 51, then he does have a better average than Schummy, who has 7 championships in 15 years, and 90 wins in 247 races. The article actually does name Fangio as the best ("[a] genius against whom all others are measured"), even if it is only an oppinion, you can't deny a lot of people think like that.
Your edits to Fangio took me to take a look at Schumacher's article; you are seriously pushing your oppinion over other peoples, what goes against Wikipedia Policies. I don't even know exactly what bothers you from the previous version of Fangio's article, that a lot of people consider him the best driver?? It is a verifiable fact, you have to learn to live with other people's oppinions.
Finally, as the article of BBC says: "being the most successful in history does not necessarily mean you are the best". Mariano(t/c) 10:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh, it's actually your opinion of someone else's opinion that the said quote establishes that one person's words actualy are trying to convey that Fangio was the best. And, good luck with that. As I demonstrated above, I totally destroyed the argument of his greater WC average. Plus, as most people know in racing, half of Schumacher's racing career he was racing with sub-par cars. He went from a winning team to a losing team and turned them into the "winningest" team ever.
Your use of words and phrases such as "demonstrated" and "totally destroyed" are misleading. Shumacher raced 15 years, not 5; same goes for wins/races. Then, first you talk about how I interpret people's oppinion, and right after that you talk about "people in racing knowing...". On that, Fangio won titles with 4 different constructors. What the BBC article significates is that all drivers in the article are considered, by some people, to be the best. But then again, if you are not listening, you'll not hear. Mariano(t/c) 10:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the article seems to be infering that Schumacher was the best --but-- there are some other people that have claims to being great on one level or another. But such inference is only assumption, as the article never substantiates any driver being the "greatest". Ernham 11:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, it's not about Being the greatest, but about Being considered the greatest. Mariano(t/c) 11:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"considered the greatest" = POV. "The greatest" = fact, assuming you qualify and validly substantiate the given criterion. Is wiki about facts, then, or POV? Ernham 11:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, the other way around; To be considered the best can be sourced and verified, being the best can't!! I have already explained you that you can't compare two drivers and say that one of them is better, specially if from different times. Mariano(t/c) 11:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
regardless of your opinion on that matter, it's really moot. No poll ever done has shown that he is considered greater than Schumacher. In fact, all the polls ever done have shown Schumacher the greatest above him, with Senna trailing a bit behind. Fangio is always a distant third. He's not the people's greatest; he's not the experts' greatest; and he's not statistic's greatest. Calling him greatest in any capacity is intellectually dishonest. Further, you CAN prove someone is the best via data and statistics, which has already been done by a well known race car driver biographer. And popularity can be polled as well. Fangio loses on all accounts. Ernham 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No offence, but your statement that "No poll ever done has shown that he is considered greater than Schumacher" is well - how do I put this? Silly. As I've come across several polls which suggest the oposite to your opinion. Sadly, I can't access those websites at the moment because of my college internet restrictions.--Skully Collins 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro - Schumacher comments and Considered Greatest

For the attn of User:Ernham; rgding your reverts

Claims of quoted out of context is incorrect. Quote true to intention as indicated by BBC article's title. I've just changed the sentencing of Michael Schumacher overcoming the record. It was required to rephrase, because in this article, the subject is Fangio and not Schumacher. The information should be on Fangio, and correct. Whether Michael schumacher has seven records or nine, has to be present in Michael Schumacher's article. Here what matters is that one shows it was a 45 year (long standing) record, and the person who surpassed it. Since the quote was made after beating the record, and because it was about Fangio, becomes relevant to the article and the sentence.

As with the "considered greatest by many", Fangio is somebody who has a distinction of regarded so, by his peers and followers(something michael was doing). But still we dont say "considered greatest" as it says more that it might. For instance you seem not to share that. Many people do, and that is evident from Fangio's profile on the official site. So we say "considered greatest by many". POV is wrong so is dilution. Please check the profiles of other notable drivers - Senna or Schumacher in the same official site Champions' Profile. That would speak about their achievements, but you dont see a mention of greatest in the opening intro..

Thats the difference.. If say, I am a Senna fan, i might feel like going and editing in Senna is greatest.. But that defeats the whole purpose. And that is what you seem to be doing with Schumacher.. And when you are editing with such an intention, you are wasting your own and others time. It is evident that you dont care about the article you edit as much as your opinion. Shown from this edit; Besides manipulating the quotes, you've taken off Mercedes Benz and Maserati... and you probably noticed only now; So much for the concern of the article. You have the right of an opinion, but please dont be here just to impose that, esp when there are no grounds and you are in violation of even the basic guidelines. Just a reminder because honestly, one doesnt enjoy wasting time repeatedly with changing rash edits. Having to say coz, had tried discussing matter very politely with you previously to no avail. --Su30 15:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "by their fruits you shall know them". If Fangio is the greatest, show us that cornucopia of fruit he bears, and let people make their own decision. If you put direct quotes in your wiki, particularly when those quotes come from living persons, you better make sure that it is in context and conveys the whole meaning that was stated. if i just cut up peoples quotes, I could provide a page bigger than the entirety of Fangio's wiki of modern race drivers/experts/commentators all proclaiming Schumacher as "the greatest". Ernham 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The argument on the quotes being misleading is not valid(see above). You may not have liked him say that, i can see from your attempts. But can it be taken off on that grounds alone? It can be discussed if you have a problem on the "considered greatest by many", coz there is some sense. But to take off/modifying the quotes has no grounds whatsoever.--Su30 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
btw, I didn't mean to clip out part of the four teams. no, i was actually going to change that to what someone had put in there before that was complimentary to Fangio, the statement about how he won with 4 different teams. But i got caught up elsewhere last night and forgot about it. in any event, you continue to take Schuamcher's quote out of context. He stated that as a RACING PERSONALITY *he* considers fangio greater than he sees himself, and that basically you can't compare things across eras like that. I've stated my argument on this like 5 times now and no one has bothered coming up with a valid counter-argument outside of he "well he said these words".Ernham 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've pointed that out just to show your concern about the article. I am not very happy to criticise, but give it a thought. I see no point in an edit war. Just consider one thing. Most sports in any period has heroes, and fans for each of them and there is so much emotional content in the support and it is not out of the ordinary that a fan would want to see their hero on the ultimate summit; yeah yeah.. he/she would have lot of reasons to say that.. But when that is carried out to an encyclopedia, there is trouble. Dead sportsmen with dead fans would go out of the window, however good they were.. And each era, would redefine the summit. Fangio's best years were done before he arrived in europe, the 5 titles dont measure the driver completely. Besides knowledge of the equipment, doesnt know any other driver who peers unanimously talk with reverence. Not to pull down what recent drivers like Schumacher or Senna have done. Will be back on this one--Su30 16:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to rag on Fangio too much, because he's probably the nicest guy ever to race in F-1; however, you simply cannot call him the greatest when it comes to driving. The reality is, that in Fangio's Era the sport was dominated by ultra-rich overweight men. It was more a country club than it was a competition. I wrote that it was "feat" that fangio won with 4 different teams, but in reality it wasn't really a feat because Fangio was well-known for absolutely having to have the best car. He ALWAYS went to the team that had the best car, hence his "feat", both of winning 5 WDC and of winning with 4 different teams.(as a side note, Senna did the exact same thing) I think I've been more than flattering to Fangio in light of reality.Ernham 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when did you connect with reality? In Fangio's era, drivers got killed at the rate of one a month. Your comments show an astonishing lack of knowledge and respect. Your continuing persistence in twisting articles to reflect your feelings about Michael Schumacher are not only non-encyclopedic, but insulting. Please know that your opinions are not shared by many of the more knowledgable followers of the sport. *Stands back and waits for insults / childish retort* Bretonbanquet 22:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even need to answer with words: http://members.atlasf1.com/williams/collisions.jpg Ernham 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you don't need to answer it at all, you just have to post some irrelevant stats. Bretonbanquet 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
and meaningless as well - what do those stats actually mean? Bretonbanquet 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
ahh, ok. To the unbiased observer: at least you can see what kind of ridiculousness I have to put up with around here.Ernham 23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Don't pretend that table of stats is self-explanatory, because it isn't. No wonder people have stopped arguing with you, it's like talking to a pile of bricks. Bretonbanquet 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out, for the sake of sanity, that you cannot compare what Fangio achieved with what Schumacher achieved statistically. There were less races, different rules and different machinery. Both drivers were absolutely the best throughout their careers in F1 and both can be "considered the greatest" depending on your point of view so can the Schumacher worshipper please get down off his high horse!86.1.38.43 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schumacher quote on Fangio

I've just edited the Schumacher quote on Fangio from the lead. The previous version read:

"[in regards to personality], Fangio is on a level much higher than I see myself. [But], you can't take a personality like Fangio and compare him with what has happened today. There is not even the slightest comparison."

The quote as given on the BBC website is:

"Fangio is on a level much higher than I see myself. What he did stands alone and what we have achieved is also unique. I have such respect for what he achieved. You can't take a personality like Fangio and compare him with what has happened today. There is not even the slightest comparison."

I have, after going through a couple of version, summarised the BBC quote as:

"Fangio is on a level much higher than I see myself. What he did stands alone and what we have achieved is also unique...There is not even the slightest comparison.""

The square bracketed comments in the previous version - particularly 'in regards to personality' placed at the beginning of the sentence imply that Schumacher directly and clearly qualified his statement that he saw Fangio as being on a higher level than himself as relating only to their respective personalities. The original words from the BBC website give no such clear qualification.

You could read Schumacher's comment that 'there is not even the slightest comparision' as meaning that he feels his achievements are greater than Fangio's, although it seems unlikely because it would be a public relations disaster of a monumental proportions to make such a comment. (Note: If that were the meaning it would also break with the tone of the immediately preceding comment: 'I have such respect for what he achieved') Nevertheless, the edited version of the BBC quote that I have given leaves the decision on whether that is what Schumacher meant to the reader. Cheers. 4u1e 18 October. Lunchtime.

What you have just made is very biased... you have turned the citation the direction YOU want, and you don't even try to hide it! Who are you to decide, what he really meant with this? Probably Michael meant that you cant compare what happened then with what happens today, because there is a higher and tighter competition today... so in reality he means that he respected Fangio because of his pioneer work and achievement, BUT you cant compare it with higher competitive races today...but you cut out this very relevant information!
Only a complete quote is valid, your shortened quotation is very "constructed" and obviously misleading.--84.58.34.138 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it is very biased, I certainly had no intention of making it so. I hope you don't feel that hiding my changes and reasoning would have been better! ;-) Anyway - none of us are perfect. I'm quite positive my version's very much closer to an accurate 'compression' of the quote than the previous version which distorted the full quote quite seriously to give a certain point of view. What I have left out is "I have such respect for what he achieved. You can't take a personality like Fangio and compare him with what has happened today." The bit about not comparing across eras ('You can't take.....') I consider to be covered by "What he did stands alone and what we have achieved is also unique.", which seems to me to say the same thing quite clearly. So, to the best of my understanding, I have only left out bits that effectively repeat or aren't directly relevant ('I have such respect....').
Given the history of arguing over this point I'm very happy to have the full quote - without editorialising - it's just a bit long for the lead, so it would have been nice to compact it.
By the way, please try to be polite when commenting on others work - it's easy for editors to get drawn into editing wars when we're not all nice to each other. Cheers --4u1e 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Full quote in place. Ta. --4u1e 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juan Manuel Fangio II

Fangio's nephew also was a race car driver -- Juan Manuel Fangio II I am unsure about placing a "see also" or "for this driver, see this article" marker on the top, but I have acted boldly and done so. I would say that the link is up for discussion, though. -- Guroadrunner 10:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)