Talk:Danica Patrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] RC tags

The article has two categories refering to Patrick as a Roman Catholic, and a Catholicism convert. However, at no point in the prose is her religious affiliation mentioned. I believe that somewhere (perhaps WP:CAT) that in biographical articles, only categories that are supported in the text should be included. Either the cats should be removed, or, if it is found to be significant, referenced, verifiable prose should be added to the article somewhere. Gentgeen 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. ZueJay (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if the categories were never removed or were but later replaced. I just removed the two Roman Catholic categories and the Serbian-American category because nothing in the article supports any of them. Aleta Sing 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I also removed the Irish-American categories for the same reason. Aleta Sing 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This page keeps getting vandalized, especially the references to her IndyCar career (and if I were to bet, it's by disservicing [read: Insane] ChampCar fans). Whatever method is used for semi-protecting the page, please institute it. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has been inserting vulgar remarks on this page. I deleted the ones I saw. Unfortunately, it leaves the grammar incorrect. But at least it's not vulgar. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized repeatedly since Sunday, including several times today. Can we get a mod to do a temporary lockdown? Kenhullett (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hello

             Hello:

I'm doing a biography on Danica Patrick For school,&i was thinking about the date she got married.does it mention the date of her marrige in your biography you wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.60.124 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fix the banner on the left side

It says that she has one win but her best finish is 7th in 2007. 99.172.137.121 (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008

Best season finish not individual race finish. 128.227.87.177 (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HS Cheerleader

The article currently states that she was a HS cheerleader in 1996 -- which would have made her twelve. Definitely not impossible, but a little strange. —  MusicMaker5376 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would have made her 13 or 14 depending on whether it was spring (13 turning 14) or fall (14). Her birth date is in March 1982. I'd still like to see a citation on that fact, though. Ncjon (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Not even all that strange - 14 is a typical age for an incoming high school freshman. Schoop (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shes half Serbian

How is she "american" when her father is Irish and her mother is Serbian and shes got a Serbian name: Danica!


Who came up with this Serbian origin talk? Her name Danica is Scandinavian version (daneeka), not Serbian (danitza)? her father T.J is of irish origin, and mother is american!

Danica is apparently an American of Irish and Serbian origin: http://www.blic.co.yu/sports.php?id=1998 Although her Serbian and Irish ancestral origins appear to be documented, I don't believe they are particularly relevant to this article unless her official bio or her own promotional literature cite them. If she doesn't call herself Serbian-American or Irish-American in public, I wouldn't bother citing it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.234.79 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, they just copied wrong info from this page, her mother Bev is American for generations

Let me look through the Martin Luther King Jr. pages are erase the 'African' from African-American because he is simply an American. I'll also call my American friends with Mexican ancestral heritage (formerly known as Mexican-American) and tell them that their Mexican heritage is no longer relevant since they are two generations removed from their immigrant grandparents. I would doubt that 'Bev' finds her ancestral origins to be as irrelevant as you find them. The choice of her daughter's name is one clear indication that 'Serbian-American' means something to the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.234.79 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. MLK Jr's ethnicity is directly relevant to his notability; Danica's is not. Kenhullett (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Win Claims

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Danica_Patrick

The referenced article (from SI.com) is wrong. Desiré Wilson won a non-championship F1 race, and at least 2 other women won races in the pre-modern World Championship era. Katherine Legge and Simona De Silvestro have won races in the Atlantic Championship and Erin Crocker won races in World of Outlaws. At any rate "major closed course race against multiple competitors" is just awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenhullett (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Milka Duno won races in Grand Am (albeit with a co-driver). That certainly qualifies as a "major closed course race against multiple competitors." Kenhullett (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to figure out - please change the reference, then, to one that is correct; I don't resent such a change to references, just darn well make it. I was just looking into the F1 because I was figuring top-tier, not feeder series. An article on Females in motorports, or some such, might be in order. ZueJay (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately they all have the same misstatement, presumably from picking up the same AP article. Kenhullett (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a gander at this one (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/sports/othersports/21patrick.html?_r=1&ex=1366430400&en=9540f543d1680315&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin). Any major gaffes in that? It specifically says American-sport, not European, which would invoke F1. ZueJay (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks ok; I'll change it. Funny that NY Times got it right while the sporting press, including Speed TV didn't. Kenhullett (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Eh, its all for S&Gs anyway. Newspapers have to be good for something besides the litter box. ZueJay (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Despite being SI, this one is correct (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/racing/04/20/patrick.japan300.ap/index.html). ZueJay (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicole Manske info

Removed because it's terribly irrelevant. An IndyCar racer (and especially this one) is of a much higher level of fame than a NASCAR reporter, and the shared experience has nothing to do with either one reaching their current levels of fame. Lambertman (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You should do a tad bit more research, because actually Nicole Manske has worked on the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Radio Network as a pit reporter every year 2005, 2006, 2007, for the Indianapolis 500. She is expected to return to the crew for 2008. Note that the article cited is from indy500.com talking about how the two "cheered" together, and how their paths crossed again at Indy. There is some reasonable relevance. Doctorindy (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I'll grant you the higher relevance. I still think having this info here would benefit Manske far more than Patrick. Lambertman (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Not to make a big deal about it either way, I mean we're talking about "cheerleading"...we should be embarrased! Doctorindy (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Not at all. Cheerleaders are one of this country's finest natural resources. ;) Lambertman (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy NPOV

This section has nothing but negative comments about Danica Patrick from other drivers and just one fact that she finally won one race. How does winning one race balance two paragraphs of nothing but spitful comments (although referenced) from other drivers. There has to be someone authoritative out there who thought that she was good for the sport. How about adding some of those quotes. It's not really a controversy if everyone agrees that Patrick is destroying the sport. Something is a controversy if there are at least two polarizing views. From the section, it seems that there is just one view - Patrick is a bimbo who the crew are afraid to strap in. That's why it's NPOV - no neutrality in the section. --RossF18 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. --CaptainVlad (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ross - thanks for clarifying where you were coming from with the NPOV tag. Just to be clear where I'm coming from, while acknowledging that men and women are different (Duh!), I've got no time for any view that women (or men) can't do any particular activity. And Button's comments are just silly. The weight thing is a real, albeit minor, effect (it would affect acceleration/deceleration and cornering speed). In my opinion, complaining about it is a bit silly - it's also an advantage to have better reaction times, better peripheral vision or greater upper body strength: are those things unfair?
Nonetheless, such comments have been made and quite widely reported, so they should be in here somewhere.
My suggestion, as a short term fix:
  • Change the heading from 'Controversy' to 'Criticism'. As Ross says, this is not actually controversy.
  • Delete the comments from Button. They're from a lifestyle piece for a men's magazine, which is not a serious source for this kind of thing and Button really didn't say anything of any interest.
  • Start a para off with something like 'Several male drivers have made negative comments about Patrick's ability, as a woman, to race successfully'. Follow that with one negative comment as an example. I suggest that Petty's is the best one.
  • Look for some positive comments and, assuming that there are a reasonably number of them, add one of those as a counter.
How does that sound? 4u1e (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Having a criticism section would make the entire article NPOV because no other drivers have a criticism sections. I have no problem with keeping the criticism controversy header for the section - but, it needs to be balanced with some positive comments. I don't really think Button's comment is the problem. The problem is not having a balanced section. Also, one positive comment still doesn't balance all of the negative comments. --RossF18 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The above suggestions all sound good to me. Button's comments especially need to go; the source has already been noted, but more than that, what he said could likely have been in jest. Petty's comment, I agree, is the one that needs to stay.CaptainVlad (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ross, I take it we agree that criticism of Patrick should be included, since it has happened (however incorrect or illogical it might be)? The best solution is actually to build the material into the body of the article and not have a controversy or criticism section at all. However, that takes a lot more work to find ways of welding it seamlessly into the text. Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving 'equal time' to both views. (see WP:NPOV) The section does need to be balanced with positive comments, reflecting the degree to which those positive comments exist.
I'll edit as I suggested above and have a look for positive comment on Patrick's driving. Ross and Vlad, would you mind having a look as well and posting any relevant quotes here or putting them straight into the article? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are some possible sources for positive comments:
Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing agianst having a controversy section. Again, the section itself is not the problem. It just the fact there is nothing but negative comments in that section. Balance it out, and you have a perfect controversy section. A section titled criticism would just have ctitisim, and then you'd have to have a section titled Praise to put the praise into that section. Having good comments in a criticism section is silly. How is it criticism if there are good comments as well. Controversy is a better title because there both good and negative comments. I wasn't saying take out negative comments or rename the section. I was saying make the argument more neutral by adding more positive comments. And I do know that NPOV doesn't mean giving "equal time" to both views. If there are no equal view on the other side, it doesn't make the article NPOV. Just because Hitler is cast in a wholly negative light, that doesn't make the article NPOV. However, when there are in fact sufficient information for a balanced view, not having that balanced view is NPOV. Even if you don't give equal time to both points of view, having not a single positive line does make the section NPOV. Equal time is not the goal. But neither is no time. --RossF18 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure what we're arguing about here! I changed the title to 'Criticism' because you correctly pointed out at the top of this thread that the contents of this section are not 'Controversy' as such. If I have misinterpreted what you meant, please change the section title back to 'Controversy'. I really don't mind! Ah, I see you have changed it. Thanks. :) 4u1e (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding positive comments, we seem to be violently agreeing. I think we should have suitable positive comments in the section. Do you feel any of the positive comments from the links I posted above would be suitable? If not, do you have any other positive comments about Patrick to suggest? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that you can't have a controversy with just one point of view, but in this case there are in fact two points of view - one that Patrick is good driver and another that she is not. Before, the controversy section presented just one of these points of view and thus did not present the two views of the contoversy. Having added a few quotes to balance it out makes the section now suitable for a controversy heading. --RossF18 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've removed Burton's positive comments, because they unbalanced that para to two 'pro' and one 'con', and in general she is if anything (rightly or wrongly) more criticised than praised by other drivers. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The Button comments should be in; what makes them important is that he is a Formula One driver; the fact that said them to a men's magazine is counterbalanced by the fact...that he is a Formula One driver (and winner of a single race in his own field, incidentally). Likewise, Richard Petty's comments, specifically about Danica, but alluding to his belief that automobile racing will never be a sport where women do as well as men, should also be present for their specific identification of her/allusion-to-her-fame, by the speaker. --Chr.K. (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Button's comments ought to be relevant. Unfortunately, what he is reported to have said is that she has big boobs and the mechanics might find it hard to concentrate when strapping her in. I find it hard to accept either of those statements as a significant addition to the discussion. The footnote does mention that he was critical of Patrick, which is giving Button more credit than he deserves - although he may have been misquoted, of course! 4u1e (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)