Jump to content

Talk:Alain Prost/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Demeaning Prost?

I notice Ayrton Senna fans (of which I am one, as I ride around in his, and no one else's, helmet all summer) want to make Prost out to be a bad driver? Do you not realise that that diminishes Ayrton Senna's achievements in beating him? Why use weasel phrases? Prost was an absolute titan of motorsports. One of the absolute best drivers to have ever lived. Why do you deny this and marginalise Ayrton's achievements in beating Prost?

A portrait?

I request a portrait of him?

leading 15 races in 1993

This statistic shouldn't include races he started form pole but failed to lead a racing lap of, such as Donington and Hungary. --MartinUK 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

request

wanted to know the reason for his nicknames -- Euyyn


correction required:

3rd sentence conflicts with last sentence. Is Prost part of the Grand Prix Masters series or not?

Point in first GP

I removed Schumacher from that section. He retired on the first lap of his first GP (Belgium '91) with a clutch failure. Counterfit 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? O.K.
2. Factually accurate? O.K.
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? O.K.
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

  • The lead section has too many paragraphs (6) cutting it down to 4 would be more appropriate to summarize the article. The prose of the lead tends to use some weasel words too that shouldn't appear in WP.
  • Time-dimension words such as currently should be taken out of the text.
  • Although he had a passion for his country's national sport, Football,[7] Prost's interest turned to kart racing which he discovered at 14 while on a family holiday in the south of France. What began as fun quickly became an obsession and he won several karting championships. is duplicated in the first 2 sections and should only appear once (probably in the driving career section).
  • was certainly eye catching, as he finished in sixth place, earning one point on his F1 debut, an achievement only a handful of drivers had achieved. has words that convey a feeling and that express sentiments though it shouldn't.
  • In Prost managed to add four more points to his tally during the rest of season, scoring points in Brazil; Britain and the Netherlands. Prost finished the year in 15th, equalling points with Brazilian Emerson Fittipaldi., it should say rest of the season and what does 15th mean? (I guess it is his position on the final listing)
  • The "Before, you thought you could do it," he said. "Now you know you can." quote should be inline cited.
  • although it it could have been six, but his win at the San Marino Grand Prix was cancelled out after his car was found to be underweight in the scrutineering, meaning disqualification. should be copyedited and give a source to go with the statement as it looks like original research.
  • despite driving a car that was underpowered compared to those of his top rivals. says who? Another citation is needed.
  • The article should stick with one type of english (example : tire or tyre)

Although this article looks good, there are things to do and the article will be put on hold to let the editors know what should be done on the article to change it and better it. Lincher 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Think all that stuff is now fixed, but I am worried about many apparent copyvios. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.77.175 (talk • contribs).
Can you point to some, I will try to help you in deciding if it is and what site it came from would also help in this issue. Lincher 16:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten some (Big chunks from the previous version of the lead and 'family life' came from www.formula1.com). Remaining examples:

  • 1980 season - almost identical to [1] (third para)
  • 1983 season - same source, fourth para
  • 1990 season - same source, eighth para
  • 1991 season - same source, ninth para

There are possibly others. 4u1e 08:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written what was mentioned by you for the 4 seasons ... please COPY-EDIT my text as I don't see my mistakes right off the bat and would like you to make more adjustments before I re-evaluate it. Lincher 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

GA awarded

Nice work on removing the copyvio, and on re-writing the text to add prose. Good luck with the rest of the article's perfecting. Lincher 17:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Champion of Champions Trophy?

Anyone know what the "Champion of Champions Trophy" mentioned in the 1988 section is? Should that be in the article?

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No indication at YouTube that permission had been gained for reproduction of footage. Link removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.109.208 (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Photograph

I'm surprised this article made it to FA without a photograph of Prost (pictures of helmets don't count). Can someone upload a photo of this man? Appleseed (Talk) 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:WIAFA: "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." Alexj2002 14:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've turned one up on another Wikipedia site and am currently uploading to commons. Will be available in a few minutes! Pyrope 14:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Damn, anyone read Georgian??? If so, any ideas about the licencing on this? Pyrope 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Have uploaded to English Wikipedia as an interim until the Georigian licence can be clarified. I'll use here as I believe fair use covers this photo for this particular article. Please comment at the talk page. Pyrope 15:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OBE

Do we have a source on Prost being awarded the Order of the British Empire, despite him being a Frenchman? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I found it myself: [2]. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The OBE awarded is honourary, and as such he is not allowed to be referred to as Alain Prost OBE. This is the same as Bob Geldof not being referred to as Sir Bob Geldof. 80.176.146.52 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear, but Order of the British Empire says that KBE's at least can use the letters, if not the title 'Sir'. 4u1e 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It is in fact completely clear. ALL recipients of British honours may use whatever postnominal letters come with the awards. Only substantive knights may use the prenominal "Sir", but that's not relevant in the Prost case. He was appointed an honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire, so he gets to use OBE after his name. But his WP category should be Category:Honorary Officers of the Order of the British Empire, and I will make that change now. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Team-mate comparisons

See the forum at atlasf1.com - the leading internet f1 forum - that these comparisons are widely regarded as the single most important means for establishing the true capability of a driver independent from the car factor. It is not trivial, it a serious method which is also regularly used by f1 commentators and accepted by the drivers when you analyse their comments. As a side-note, I would try to be less high-handed in what is qualified "trivial" and what is not. Regards Gun Powder Ma 22:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your general point, but I'm not sure that we need a season-by-season breakdown to prove it. I have adjusted what is there as it could do with being slightly more neutral in tone, and the season vs. Watson can't just be dismissed as 5 points from 11 races still indicates that, had his run of form continued, he would only have equalled Watson't points tally at best, had he competed in an equal number of rounds. Can we get some feedback on the section's inclusion from others please? Pyrope 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a one-liner like "Prost scored more points than his team mate in each of his seasons in Formula One, except the first" with possibly a footnote that he outscored Senna in 1988, but lost the championship due to the scoring system in place that year. The breakdown's not really necessary, the season summaries prove it if anyone questions it. Cheers. 4u1e 23:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is now a more constructive approach. :-) Prost had probably better team-mates than any other f1 pilot, still he outscored practically all of them, that information is a must in a prost article. The season summaries are IMO too long winded to bring the point across, since the information is only implicitly included, what is rather needed is a neat and quick overview which the list nicely provides. Regards Gun Powder Ma 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's an important point, one which I'd never noticed before, thank you for pointing it out (It gives me more ammunition next time I'm extolling Prost's virtues as the 'forgotten' candidate in one of those discussions about who was the greatest!) I still don't think actually giving the points and team mates for each season is necessary, however. Taking your point about the quality of his team mates, how about:
"In each all but two of his seasons in Formula One, except the first, Prost scored more points than his team mates, who included four five world champions (Niki Lauda, Keke Rosberg, Ayrton Senna, Nigel Mansell and Damon Hill). In 1988 he lost the championship to Senna, despite scoring more points, because the championship was decided on the best 11 results out of 16."
That would remove the need for a separate section. Thoughts? 4u1e 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the latest proposal except 1. You forgot Mansell and 2. He didn't score more than Lauda in '84. I think it's an interesting and relevant point. Thanks to Gun Powder Ma for adding it. ColinClark 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Better? 4u1e 16:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am aware of the necessesity for brevity, but I do not consider the list as redundant (in fact, I think it should be included for all f1 drivers). It is a list, not a text, the content of which to take in takes a second. That means those who are interested in the information - and many are, believe me, I have been active in several f1 forum for many years - will linger, those who aren't will immediately move on without measurable loss of time or focus. Gun Powder Ma 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In a wikipedia context I suspect it will provoke the response 'too listy'. My belief is that the importance is in the explanation of those numbers, and by the time you've done that, the list itself (IMHO!) isn't adding much. If others don't feel strongly about it though, I'm happy to leave it. Cheers. 4u1e 07:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If we are leaving it in, would it be better in table format? 4u1e 07:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I support that. Create a table. Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, GPM, it's you that wants this material included, not me! I don't mind the material staying, but please don't suggest that I should go to the trouble of prettying up something that, in my ideal world, I would leave out. Feel free to do it yourself if the idea catches your fancy. Cheers. 4u1e 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this line: "and in Prost's very first season, when John Watson beat him by only a single point, despite a hand injury limiting Prost's particiption to 11 races to Watson's 13." - The hand-injury line doesn't seem fair, when it's likely some of his other team-mates ran less races than him/had more car failures etc. when they got beat. It would seem POV to explain why he didn't win that Head-to-Head, while not explaining the reason why others might have just lost out. Any objections to me removing that bit?AlexJ 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, even allowing for the hand injury, based on points-per-race Watson still won. I'm for removing it. Pyrope 10:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The table makes obviously only sense if we are going by the total career points. I am not aware of any "consensus" on putting the total career points into parentheses at WP. If so, in any case, it does not take account of the way the FIA counts points which is the only relevant criteria here. For the FIA, dropped scores are only relevant for the championshsip season, but for career statistics total points are relevant, whcih are the topic here. Hence, I revert. Regards Gun Powder Ma 22:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
See discussion here. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. In addition, check out the results table for any F1 driver who ever dropped points (e.g. Nigel Mansell, Ayrton Senna, Graham Hill, etc) - they all show championship points outside parentheses and total points in parentheses. So, for the moment, I'll revert the article to match the standard format. -- DH85868993 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The tally between AP and JW was 5 to 3 for races both participated. JW scored the decisive 3 points in another race where AP had to pause for a sustained hand injury. I tried to introduce that fact into the article without going into detail, hence my simple phrase that JW "participated in more races". Regards Gun Powder Ma 11:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC) 11:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, but are we going to cover 1989, where Senna retired from six races to Prost's three, not to mention the disqualification in Japan? Three of those were electrical or mechanical failures, and the Adelaide collision with Brundle was arguably unavoidable under the circumstances. Another three good finishes would have reversed the points situation. (I'm a Prost rather than a Senna fan, by the way, I'm just pointing out that if we make allowances, we need to do so consistently) 4u1e 11:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Similar, but less strong case with Arnoux (5 retirements to Prost's 4) in 1983. By the way, I don't understand the relevance of comparing points for the races both were in - I can't see any significance in Watson having scored 'the decisive points' in a race Prost wasn't in. You could argue that Prost would have finished ahead of him, I suppose, but we're wandering a long way off into speculative territory by now. I still think the best thing is the version I proposed right at the start of this debate which sticks strictly to the unarguable fact that Prost outscored his team mate in all but one season, without special pleading for or against particular years. 4u1e 11:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh not this again GPM. Prost was an amazing talent, but you are debasing his record by attempting to create a hagiography. In his first season Watson beat him, but only just. On overall points, Watson won. On points per race, Watson won. It was a close run thing, but Watson won. Live with it. You can't start bending history to fit your personal prejudice. In an F1 season the FIA don't average race points according to the number of starts, still less by the number of finishes, so why should we here? Yes, Prost had a hand injury, but there are plenty of times in racing history when a driver has just missed out on a title because of injury. If Lauda hadn't nearly cooked himself in 1976 there is probably no way that Hunt would ever have become World Champion. To bowdlerise a popular saying: stuff happens. Pyrope 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You really remind me of Keke Rosberg you know, Pyrope. It's not a bad thing IMO, it's just that you have a tendancy to say "a spade's a spade" - if you know what I mean ;-). Anyway, as I said before and I'll say it again, this section shouldn't really be here because the comparison can be made in the main body of the article can't it? Besides, I'm sure most readers would prefer to read about the rivalry between Prost and Senna rather than a comparison with their teammate. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't know about that Phill; I'm a mining geologist so I'd probably call it a shovel... (apologies to Terry Pratchett for nicking that gag). However, I generally support that inclusion of the section as a separate entity, just as I support the rivalry with Senna section as a seprate entity. They are both significant pieces of information and deserve to be elaborated on. However, I would prefer that they were honest, and not looking to over-egg the pudding by pushing tendentious logic. Pyrope 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the logic here. Retirements as suffered by Lauda and Senna are a differerent thing from starts, and they are accordingly classified by FIA differently. The point is AP did not even start those races. W all know that these are two different things. Failing to mention in a point comparison that AP started in less races than his team-mate is POV, especially since it changed the tally. Regards Gun Powder Ma 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you know how to calculate a mean value? No? Well you divide the value by the frequency. Right? Ok, so in 1980 Prost scored five points from eleven starts, giving him a mean of 0.455 points per race. John Watson scored six points from thirteen starts, giving him 0.462 points per race. Hence, the fact that Prost started fewer races is entirely irrelevant. By adding that phrase to the main page you are implying that had Prost started an equal number of races he would have beaten Watson, which is completely unjustified. Yes, he might have scored a couple of points, but he might also have crashed to a firey death. My point is that it didn't change the tally. That is entirely speculation on your part, and speculation has no place in an encyclopedic article. If you want to mention that he started fewer races, you ought to also mention that for most of the season (apart from the British Grand Prix) Prost had a demonstrably faster car than Watson (see Motor Sport, March 2007). If you are going to try and include excuses than you might at least be fair and include both sides of the story. Pyrope 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(re-set)Hmm - we have a problem here, because Pyrope, AlexJ, Phill and myself find your position illogical and you find ours illogical. Even if we accept that retirements (non-driver induced ones) are different to DNSs (not obvious to me, the effect is the same in the case of deciding whether a driver was disadvantaged, which is what we seem to be trying to do here), Watson's points per start still beats Prost's. The only way you can make Prost's two missed races significant is to be extremely picky about which races are 'relevant' or make assumptions about what Prost might have done. I still don't understand what the problem is with sticking to the simplest version - it's still very impressive and unarguably true.

Assuming that GPM wont be persuaded by this, does anyone know where we go with this, other than reverting edits, which isn't going to be very productive in the long run? 4u1e 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a Pimms advert: four of us, one of him, it must be 3RR o'clock. That's the whole point of the 3RR, it prevents one editor overriding the view of the majority. If we take it in turns to restore an NPOV version then he can only revert it twice before being in contravention of 3RR. Pyrope 17:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeees, but that's not exactly in the Wiki-spirit, and doesn't ultimately get us anywhere, since a dissenter can still revert sporadically. The aim of the exercise is always consensus, not majority rule, which means everyone goes home happy (Yay, fluffy bunnies all round). I'm just wondering what happens when we actually reach an impasse. If it weren't important I'd be inclined to leave it, but I feel that NPOV is at stake here (Ironically, so does GPM :D). 4u1e 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
All good points. Anyone know of a wikiACAS out there? Pyrope 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, I like you all, but is anyone of you by chance posting regularly in a f1 forum such as atlasf1? I am a regular reader and contributor there for over 6 years (and in other f1 forums, too), and, after reading thousands posts by f1 aficionados, I'd like to think I know a bit what counts in such comparisons and how people do them and like them to do.
For example, imagine if this season Heidfeld manages to beat Kubica just so in terms of points, but only because of the points he scored in the two North American GPs where Kubica was out for his crash, then this would be in any meaningful comparison a MUST to mention. Because the BMW ran very good there and Kubica lost a lot of potential points. And, in fact, the situation was very much alike in 1980 when Prost suffered a hand injury in South Afrian GP and paused in the subsequent race in the US GP, where the McLaren happened to run well.
I am not taking anything away from Watson by saying that AP participated in less races. This is a fact and no subjective interpretation at all, and the most important thing it still leaves people all freedom to make their own judgements (A very different thing would have been if I had suggested a causal argument like 'AP scored less points because he participated in less races', which I do not). Personally, I feel depriving readers of this vital information is a kind of POV, just giving the raw and uninterpreted information of JW having participated in more races is IMHO the best compromise between your and my position. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma 20:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
How about presenting the information by adding 2 extra columns to the table, indicating how many races each driver competed in. Then people reading the article can make their own judgement, as described above. DH85868993 02:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder what the point of this section is. What is the point you were trying to make by suggesting it? If you are trying to look at Prost's performance as a race driver then the whole season must count. A driver has a direct influence on the reliability of their car and the number of culpable and non-culpable accidents in a season. It is a common observation (made originally by Stirling Moss I believe) that the best drivers also tend to be the luckiest - their ability helps them to avoid situations that might cause them or their car harm. Your raising of the Kubica point is interesting, but I think it proves exactly the opposite to your assumption: if Kubica hadn't hit Trulli then he wouldn't have crashed in the first place. Therefore his dnf in Canada and his dns in the USA are directly his own fault, and should stand against him when reckoning his talent as a race driver. This is exactly the same circumstance as Prost crashing in 1980 and injuring his own hand. DH's suggestion of a "race starts" column would also gloss over this, so I can't support it. Had he not injured himself then Prost would have driven in those races which he missed. After all, who makes allowances for JPM with his infamous "tennis" injury? On the other hand (no pun intended), if you are just wanting to look at Prost's outright speed relative to his team mate then racing is not the place to do it. You would be far better off (in Prost's era at least) looking at their qualifying performances. You have to choose, points or poles, race or pace, you can't mix and match which aspects you focus on. Pyrope 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll comment further later, but one quick point: participation in any particular forum confers no authority, here or elsewhere. Not because I've got anything against forums, although they are not necessarily the most appropriate model for an encyclopedia, but because it comes close to an argument from authority - 'I know about this, so my approach is the correct one'. The rest of us also know this topic well, very well in most cases. The point here is to write a collaborative encyclopedia - let's try and find a compromise position that we are all happy with. What about DH's suggestion? 4u1e 07:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the section is simply deleted as not especially notable. There's no similar comparison made for other notable drivers like Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, or Mikka Hakkinen, who were all very successful in comparison with their respective team mates, so why is it notable for Prost? --Dave. 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are trying to find a compromise situation here. My personal preference was just to have the one liner that he outscored his teammates in each season except two - a fairly minor but relevant bit of trivia (Schumacher, Senna and Piquet have similar records, so perhaps not all that unusual for a multiple champion driver in modern times). GPM wanted the table, so we've got that in as well. I've got no problem with compromising on what we have, provided that it is a compromise, taking into account all views, which range from having nothing (Dave) to having a full table, with a notes as to the particular circumstances in each (My understanding of GPM's position, apologies if mis-stated). 4u1e 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've read GPM's further response, and it still seems to me that it relies on interpreting the facts, not on reporting them. This doesn't mean that I think the interpretation is wrong in itself, but why are we only doing it in Prost's favour? I still see no problem with simply using the basic facts. In terms of fairness I would also be happy if we interpreted the facts for each season, but that would be lengthy, probably very argumentative and would also constitute original research on our part.
This is really quite a minor point (I hate to think that anyone would change their view of Prost based on such a fine distinction). I don't think we're really introducing any new points into the discussion any more. I've edited again to remove the editorial on circumstances in 1980. I suggest that gives us a situation which is a compromise. Dave appears not to even want the point mentioned. Pyrope and Colin Clark and I are happy to have the point mentioned, but Pyrope and I didn't see a need for the table. GPM wants the point mentioned, the table, and an explanation of the circumstances in 1980, but no-one else is arguing for the latter and several are arguing against. I think the edit I have just made represents some kind of middle ground - each of us will have given up something. Anyone happy to agree to this? 4u1e 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am. Thanks for all your efforts to achieve compromise on this 4u1e. DH85868993 14:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I can live with that. Thanks, the present position does seem a reasonable compromise. Pyrope 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think it's notable if it's only for Prost, but if this is consensus then I'll accept it.--Dave. 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'd prefer point, no table, no justification but I'll settle for point, table and no justification as a compromise. AlexJ 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I, too, would prefer just a one-liner, but the compromise is good. Thanks to 4u1e for all the work.ColinClark 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(OK guys, thanks. I think that leaves Phill and GPM of those who have taken part in the debate. I don't think GPM edits on quite such a regular basis as some of us, so we may need to wait a while. 4u1e 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
I'll agree. Thanks for the work 4u1e ;-). --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested article

I suggest that someone create the article Rivalry between Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna (or similar), merging and moving all related content from Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. This way, you're not duplicating the information or hiding bias on each driver's page. This suggestion was also posted to Talk:Ayrton Senna. Ham Pastrami 09:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wet Racing

One thing which isn't really covered in this article is the perception that Prost was not so good in wet conditions, and didn't seem to enjoy them. In Australia 1989 he pulled out due to the conditions (having already sealed the championship), and he was criticised for not finishing the 1988 British race in the wet. Conversely, he was apparently well-regarded as a wet-weather driver in his early years. Might his dislike stem from Didier Pironi's career-ending collision with him in the wet in 1982?--MartinUK (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we maybe stepping into the POV area now, Martin. I had a similar idea for the article as well but couldn't really word it so that it was neutral. I would suggest bringing this to the talk page at WP:F1. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad words

Bullsh*t is not an appropriate word for an encyclopedia. It's demeaning, it is appropriate for the gutter only, and I'm appalled with everybody's acceptance of such wording. I know that is a quote, but I never quote junk expressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbastos7 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Prost logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Caption for photo in infobox

Can I just get a feel for whether people think the caption for her picture in the infobox is worthwhile or not? Do you think the article's better with or without it?--Jeff79 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Better with the caption. Photos benefit from having a date in the caption. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Without.Londo06 15:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Why?--Jeff79 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
See your talk page.Londo06 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry with Piquet

Why is the focus on his rivalries with Senna and Mansell? Much of the first half of the eighties was a competition between Piquet and Prost and Piquet continued to be a major rival. 41.241.102.50 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess is because, from a distance of 20 years, his rivalries with Senna and Mansell are more "memorable", perhaps because they were more bitter(?) than his rivalry with Piquet (which, by my recollection, was mostly on-track, whereas his rivalries with Senna and Mansell involved a fair degree of off-track activity). If you can assemble some well-sourced discussion of Prost's rivalry with Piquet, by all means add it in. DH85868993 (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Watson in 1980

It's not true that in 1980 Prost was beaten by John Watson. First of all, Prost started two fewer races than Watson that year; furthermore, Watson got half of his 6 points at Long Beach, when Prost was injured! So Prost wasn't actually beaten by Watson. If anything, it's the other way around. FormulaPedia (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh but we have been through this before in detail. Watson outscored Prost, period. You can't slice it any way that doesn't include Prost not scoring as many points as Watson, and the reason Prost missed races was because he crashed and injured himself so that ought to count in his record. Pyrope 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't actually his fault if he crashed, but that misses the point completely. On second thought, I'm not so sure anymore. Watson got 6/13 = .46 points per race, compared to Prost's 5/11 = .45. Anyway, I think it doesn't make much sense to compare the total points scored by two teammates when they didn't even take part in the same races. In 1985, Lauda started 14 races to Prost's 16; in 1991, Prost started 14 races to Alesi's 16, and so on. What's the point of all this? I think we should remove that section altogether, or maybe at least we should replace "total points" with "points per race," which makes just a little more sense. FormulaPedia (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned you can remove it. However the agreed compromise position from the previous discussion was to leave it in, but not to try and add any more special pleading on Prost's behalf. I've no objection to doing points per race either, but it changes nothing: Watson outscored Prost in 1980. 4u1e (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've said it before (Talk:Alain_Prost#Team-mate_comparisons) but I'll say it again here: the FIA do not award points based on averages per race. If that were the case then throughout most of the '50s the World Champion would have been whomsoever won the Indy 500. What we have at the moment is simple reportage. Watson beat Prost as he finished higher in the WDC standings at the end of the season. There is no interpretation in that, just a simple statement of fact. In the course of a season things happen, cars fail, drivers crash, and so on. Pyrope 15:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, so you have made the change. I didn't notice that earlier, sorry. However, I think you are making some hefty simplifications and interpretations in the calculations that you have made, and these are just not encyclopedic. For example (bringing us back to Wattie) in '80 you have excluded the three races that Prost didn't score in due to mechanical failure, but you have included all the races that Watson failed to score in due to mechanical failure. How is that a fair representation? You either make allowances for equipment or you don't. For example, JW's final few races were horrible: six retirements due to mechanical troubles followed by a huge delay in the last race due to needing to make an extended pitstop to fix the car. Are these any more or less his fault than Prost missing races due to injuries sustained in accidents caused by suspension failures? In 1980 Prost was entered for the entire season and he scored fewer points. Had he only joined the team part way into the year then perhaps some note of his fewer race starts might be justified, but this isn't the case. The reason I am opposed to rehashing data is precisely because of these sorts of grey areas, which produce "facts" that actually hide an enormous amount of interpretation and subjective reasoning. The simpler the better is usually the best. You heading off and calculating average points per race is actually sailing very close to WP:OR. Pyrope 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully endorse Pyrope's comments. Reverting now. DH85868993 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The whole section is original research, because the whole comparison idea, the table, whatever, appears just to be something that some wikipedian pulled out of his ass, rather than something published by a reliable source. Has such a table been published by a book or a magazine? If not, the very idea of publishing such a table here for the first time is tantamount to "rehashing data," as you say, which in turn means proving your own point and drawing your own conclusion rather than simply "stating the facts."

Furthermore, I don't give a dang about accidents, mechanical failure, injuries, what have you. As far as Grands Prix are concerned, the only thing that matters here is being there, i.e. actually taking part in a particular Grand Prix--or not. This is what stats are all about, and everyone here seems to miss the point. OK, maybe focusing on actual starts was not a good idea, so let's focus on participating in the event rather than starting the race (i.e., allowing for DNQs, DNSs, DNPQs, etc.) Prost took part in 13 races out of 14, that is, at Long Beach he wasn't even there. Why wasn't he there? I don't care, stats don't care. It's not like he didn't qualify or suffered engine failure or couldn't get out of the pits or got into a wreck or whatever. He just wasn't there, period. Speaking of fairness, is it fair to make comparisons between drivers when one of them isn't even there? Nope. On the other hand, Watson took part in 14 races out of 14 (13 starts, but we just said we don't care about starts).

Take 1985, for example. Does it make any sense to compare Prost's 76 points and Lauda's 14? No it doesn't. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Because Lauda took part in two fewer races than Prost--at Spa and Brands Hatch, he wasn't even there. Where was he? What was he doing? Was he sick? Was he injured? Was he flying one of his planes? Who cares. He wasn't there, period. (Funnily enough, at Brands Hatch he was replaced by Watson.) Therefore, it makes little sense to compare 76 points to 14 points, when the guy who got 76 points participated in two more events. It's not a fair comparison. It would make a little more sense to compare 4.75 points per race and 1 point per race.

This is not original research versus the truth. This is my standpoint against your standpoint, both of them being personal opinions, which means both of them are original research, which is why the whole section should be removed altogether. If I'm racing and you're not, it's way easier for me to outscore you. So what's the point of comparing things when the whole process is flawed from the start.

FormulaPedia (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You repeated state that you "don't care" why someone didn't attend a Grand Prix. That may seem like a dispassionate, rational approach, but it isn't; it is your opinion. Statistics are, inherently, a human construct. They don't leap into being from whichever creational mechanism you or your religion favour. Humans decide the frame of reference, humans decide which data to include, humans decide how to process it. Just look at the whole UEA climate change scandal that is going on at the moment for a huge example of just why these realities are important. You are wrong about these tables having been "puled out of his ass", they are a re-presentation of published data. If no re-presentation were allowed then Wikipedia as a whole should be nothing more than cited verbatim transcriptions from other published sources. However, going away and deciding to calculate averages and present them as "facts" is distinctly different and unencyclopedic. You say that you don't care why Prost wasn't at Long Beach, but the truth is that mechanical failure caused him to be injured, which caused him to miss the race, which caused him not to score points (ditto Lauda in 1985 for Belgium and Brands). There are many times in the same season where Watson didn't score points owing to mechanical failure. To my mind these are very difficult aspects to properly consider, especially where you consider the intangibles such as Stirling Moss's observation about the best drivers having the best luck (i.e. what we see as "luck" is actually a subtle reflection of driver skill and intelligence). Consider Sebastian Vettel this season: plagued by engine troubles. Mark Webber, not so much if at all. Luck? Or does Seb have a tendency to run in a higher gear than Mark, putting more stress on the motor? I don't know, I am guessing, and I am certainly not going to add it to Wikipedia. Similarly in 1980 Watson was the one hamstrung by engine failures. Was he given duff motors (Wattie's opinion) or was he overdriving the car to try and keep up with a hotshoe new young team mate (Rod Dennis)? Again, opinion is all we have to go on and that is something that certainly makes for an interesting discussion at the Autosport Nostalgia Forum, but isn't something that should appear in Wikipedia. Your opinion is that points per race are "fairer"; my point is that is based on a whole heap of personal opinion. In 1980 and 1985 both McLaren drivers were entered for a full season. At the end of those seasons they had scored those points totals. Why they scored the points they did either has to be fully examined (e.g. why DNQ, why DNF, why 9th place and not 4th?) and your criteria stated if you want to start, yes, rehashing the numbers. (Rehashing in this sense meaning any form of numerical or mathematical manipulation). These complexities are why simple is usually best. Averages are far from simple when you scratch the surface and think a little. In both 1985 and 1980 both drivers entered the Championship intending to win, so who finished higher at the end of the season is ultimately the most significant thing. I'm not saying this isn't a case of opinion vs. fact, I'm just in favour of keeping things straightforward and simple, and limiting the potential for hidden assumption and simplifications. Pyrope 16:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Demonyms in the Ayrton Senna section

Is it customary in motorsports to refer to drivers by demonym (e.g. the Frenchman/Brazilian)? Because the way it's used in the Ayrton Senna section almost makes them seem like the two's nicknames on the track. The occasional use of a demonym to add variety is fine, but their use in this section seems slightly excessive. Maybe most of them can be replaced with simply "Prost"/"Senna", leaving the demonyms only for the incidents in which their nationality is actually a factor (e.g. when Senna accuses the FIA president of siding with his countryman)?--98.119.111.64 (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was any intention to do anything other than break up the monotony a little. As you say, nationality briefly becomes an issue around 1989/1990, but otherwise if we're talking nicknames it would have to be Magic and The Professor! (Which is way too much like professional 'wrestling' for us to use here.) 4u1e (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Senna Compassion

This article briefly caps on Senna's building bridges in calling Prost a 'dear friend'. I was pleased to read this and hear of a positive reaction from Alain. I recall that when Prost announced his retirement in 93 that Senna didn't want this to happen. I believe he actually tried to persuade Alain to return in 94, to no avail. He said something along the lines of "it's not the same without you", or words to that effect. Anyone know of this, or a source? It's nice to hear the guys are real, and would like to see more of this sort of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idratherbeincornwall (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Malcolm Folley (″Senna vs. Prost″) and his interview with Alain Prost, it is true. Page 351-353.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How are all the pro-Prost quotes from a website that its, admittedly, militantly, pro-Prost? This article is NPV all over the place. 68.146.137.28 (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

i spot a mistake on the article. According to the article Prost was 25 when he made his F1 Debut. But his first race came at the 1980 Argentine Grand prix which took place in January 1980 but because Prost Birthday is on the 24th February 1955 that would make him 24, not 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.99.104 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Amended. Thanks for spotting that, well done! Pyrope 06:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alain Prost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alain Prost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alain Prost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alain Prost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alain_Prost/Archive_1&oldid=1136504630"