Jump to content

Talk:1955 24 Hours of Le Mans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1955 Disaster

[edit]

I consider the 1955 Le Mans disaster to be so important generally, never mind within the field of motor racing, that it should be left as it is on its own page and not merged.

I agree that it should be kept seperate, as it is simply too long and detailed of an article to be placed with the race results. The359 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC Four":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Money Racing is an unreliable source.

[edit]

The following passage is a direct copy from the Big Money Racing site.

"At the end of the opening lap, local hero Pierre Levegh was in seventh place, but ahead of his Mercedes team-mates. This was good politics, but on the next lap Fangio made his move. His battle with Hawthorn became so intense that the Englishman missed several calls to pit."[5]

The second and third sentences are factually incorrect. Fangio was slow getting out because his pants leg got caught on the gear shift lever while entering the car, not from any chivalrous intentions towards Levegh. The account of Hawthorn missing pit calls has also been discredited. The site also claims that no detailed photographs of the accident exist, which is not true. Stills from a home movie were analyzed in an article by Paul Frere (who drove for Aston Martin in 1955) in 1975. To this date, Frere's analysis is the most authoritative on the topic. A video reconstruction using the stills was done by Paul Skilleter. That footage was used in the documentary The Deadliest Crash and has been posted on Youtube.

Big Money Racing has been negligent on factual accuracy and cannot be considered a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.54.141 (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, the website is not a reliable source simply because it does not appear to meet reliable source criteria, regardless of what the page actually states.
However I am concerned by the recent edits and their addition of blatant WP:POV, as well as additions without any sourcing. Surely if you are able to point out the fault of one source, you're capable of adding legitimate sourcing? Even with sourcing, much of the rewritten text is not encyclopedic in tone. The359 (Talk) 20:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article to address some of the POV and remove some WP:PROMO. Seems the IP editor may be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, editing in a manner to paint Hawthorn in a better light and shift blame to Macklin. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Mojoworker (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is what the photographic evidence, per the analysis of Paul Frere, indicates. It can also be seen in reconstructed video form. Frere discredited the rumor, that is invariably repeated without attribution to any primary source or reference to photographic or physical evidence, that Hawthorn made a sudden move or braked hard in front of Macklin. Frere noted the delay in Macklin's response to Hawthorn's move. Unattributed rumors fail on the standard of WP:RS regardless of who writes them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.54.141 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at 1955 Le Mans disaster. Paul Frere was an editor-at-large for Road & Track, and the citation I've provided is to a Road & Track article from June of this year – less than 3 months ago. It appears the R&T editorial board doesn't necessarily agree with his analysis. I've provided references that support the long–standing content. If you want to change it, establish consensus to do so or show that the cited references are not reliable sources. Mojoworker (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not a magazine article, it's a commentary on a video page and there's no evidence that it was vetted by R&T editors. The fact that it includes footage copied from BBC's The Deadliest Crash without crediting it is flirting with copyright violation, which is the sort of thing editors are alert for. In fact, others who reproduced that same sequence and posted it on Youtube have had it taken down over copyright issues. So your claim that the post has the full authority of R&T's editors behind it is highly suspect. Also, it doesn't matter if it's an article in the most prestigious publication in the world, the assertion that Hawthorn belatedly realized he had a pit stop coming and cut suddenly in front of Macklin needs attribution to a source or whoever makes the assertion is an unreliable source. Whoever makes an unsubstantiated, unattributed assertion is unreliable as a source. Get it? Also, since you're determined to pick at Frere, please explain the concurrence between the only two parties who dug in and analyzed the film sequence, the ACO's investigators and Frere. By any objective standard that carries more weight than some careless blatherer, on R&T's site or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.54.141 (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the WP:RS policies, there are some very explicit statements about use of news sources. The R&T piece is a commentary on the PR video that Hawthorn narrates while driving a lap at Le Mans.
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." (emphasis added).
So the blathering commentator is out of bounds as a source for presenting the unattributed statement that Hawthorn braked hard as a statement of fact.
"The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."
Specialized experts would consist of those who performed in-depth frame-by-frame analysis of the film sequence. The two who have done so, the ACO investigators and Paul Frere, reached concordant opinions that the accident could not be attributed to sudden braking by Hawthorn. If another party with expertise reviewed the film sequence with the same rigor and reached a different opinion, there would be justification for regarding the issue as open. At this time none have, so the issue is not open.
"The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
The statement that Hawthorn braked hard in front of Macklin has not been presented with attribution to an authoritative source, either in the R&T commentary or any other piece I am aware of that repeated it. Until some source actually does that, the statement must be regarded as a rumor that fails against reliable source standards. There is simply no justification for keeping it in any WP article, unless presented as an example of one of the rumors that circulated in the aftermath.75.111.54.141 (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements that the sources for "Hawthorn cutting in front of Macklin and braking" themselves "need attribution to a source or whoever makes the assertion is an unreliable source" and "(w)hoever makes an unsubstantiated, unattributed assertion is unreliable as a source" are ludicrous and totally at odds with Wikipedia's policies. Get it? It's an interesting aside to note that until recently, WP:V said "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", see WP:VNT. You cannot just declare yourself to be the arbiter of whether or not Frere is more authoritative than any other source. Your assertion that Frere is the only source that analyzed the evidence and everyone else is repeating rumors may well be true. Or it could be that Frere is absolutely mistaken and everyone else is correct, having also analyzed the photos and come to their own conclusion. But really, we have no way of knowing, and Frere's opinion carries no more weight than the others. If you can establish consensus for your change, then we change it. But you're not really doing a very good job with your current attitude. Mojoworker (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordini T15S

[edit]

I note that the Gordini T15S is listed in the article as an "S8". Was it not an "S4"?

Not sure how old this question is... anyway in Quentin Spurring's "Le Mans 1949-59" the Gordini is listed as S8. A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1955_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans&oldid=1196012789"