Talk:Ayrton Senna

The image on this page has been removed for suspected breach of copyright. Unless copyright status is clarified within one week, the image will be deleted from wikipedia. Any attempt to he has just passed the wreck, but unless he reduced the speed after passing the wreck he was relativly slow when passing it. The following cars can be seen go by slowly. Still a dangerous thing to do though. The footage isn't 100% conclusive, but close enough IMHO. /Kakis

Edits

You people have destroyed this article.

Lined the streets

A million people lined the streets. But of which city? Sao paulo!!

Content removed

Why was this paragraph removed?

"Before his death, Senna had intended to move to the USA after retiring from Formula 1. He had expressed interest in competing in both Indy Car and NASCAR racing."

Although it wasn't substantiated by a reference, neither is any of the rest of the article, so it doesn't seem like it should have been removed to me. SamH 10:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The original comment does nothing but mirror exactly what Nigel Mansel did. I doubt very seriously that senna would have considered NASCAR in 1994 as it was nothing near what it is today. Mass disputer 02:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"hagiographic"

This article is as "hagiographic" as any I've seen. Yuck. NPOV, please.

Agreed. This article provides no perspective on the other side of Ayrton Senna - a foulmouthed, selfish system gamer who ushered in a new and reprehensible era in F1. No mention made of his "incredible control of the car" used to take his teammate Alain Prost out of the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix when Prost threatened to overtake him in the points standing. Sure, he died on the track - does that mean we have to violate NPOV? See Dale Earnhardt Sr. for an example of an evenhanded bio of a multifaceted racer. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down. You just describeabout 95% of every Elite driver who ever lived. Schumacher was no better.

"traqueostomy?"

Is that even a word? Does the author mean "tracheotomy?" I'd correct it, but I'm hardly a medical expert.

Schumacher vs. Senna

Sadly, we'll never know who was the superior driver, so I'm removing the claim that Senna was "more talented". --Robert Merkel 07:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Answer : Actually, everybody who saw F1 in the lasts 20 years knows that are a LOT of drivers superiors to Schumacher. Schumacher NEVER used to be "the greatest" nobody called him or gave him this title, but Senna. Even Schumacher himself knows that there's a teacher who teached him how to be cool... how to be agressive... and this one is Senna, I(myself with my own eyes) saw Schumacher in Monaco this year(2007) with a Brazilian flag to honor his idol(Senna), also he takes a LOT of photos to an album, with Berguer, Prost, Pelé, Ronaldo, and some more. There's no answer about "who's faster" i agree, but be fast is not what F1 is all about. F1 is about to be DRIVER and Senna is light years a better driver than Schumacher, and Schumacher himselfs recognize it, only fans can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.138.57 (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Robert Merkel, no true comparison can be made because they where never simultaneously at the pinnacle of their careers in the same car. Schumacher did however win 7 world championships, an achievement even Senna would probably have never reached. Even opinion between drivers who raced against both are divided, so it is a huge error to say everybody knows because a lot will say Schumacher. To say Schumacher knows Senna was the better is ridiculous, and if you do ask anyone in F1 how to win, they will tell you to "be the fastest!" -- User765 19:49, 12 September 2007 (GMT)

Horrible POV

This article reeks of POV and weasel words/phrases. I don't really know a lot about F1 racing, so hopefully the following things can be addressed by someone more knowledgable:

• He is regarded by many as one of the greatest racers ever. — Weasely. Use some statistics, or point to a poll done by a highly regarded professional group.
• he remains one of the most beloved Formula One personalities — opinion.
• He was accused of introducing a "video game" mentality of "win at all costs" into the sport, a legacy that was repeated often in the career of his successor, Michael Schumacher. — Can we back this up with some facts, some news stories perhaps? I'm aware a lot of people dislike Schumacher, so this is probably true, but without a reference it just seems like a dis.
• Senna demonstrated his exceptional wet driving skills by humiliating his opponents at the wheel of an inferior car. — References? What made his car inferior? Plus, I don't like the use of the word "humiliating" here.
• Many books have been written on the life and death of this legendary driver who continues to be an inspiration to millions. — Weasely and POV.

CryptoDerk 17:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The words phrases you mention, although at first seem to be POV, actually approach common knowledge status in the world of Formula One. Aytron Senna was known, and is therefore described quite frequently using the above five (and more) phrases.

He is regarded by many as one of the greatest racers ever. — Weasely. Use some statistics, or point to a poll done by a highly regarded professional group.

The Formula One hall of fame is not that large, only a handful of names are considered "greats". Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Moss, Senna, Prost, etc. As with any sport there are frequent debates among experts (in Automotive magazines, etc) of the best all round driver to have lived. Senna has been known to top these polls. Although I cannot give you an exact date, "F1 Magazine" (considered a leading reputable F1 magazine) had a vote by leading journalists and drivers recently which Senna topped. The fact that Senna is frequently regarded as the best ever driver can also be simply seen from crudely looking at google hits. The phrase "he ain't no Senna", "The new Senna?" or "Sennaesque" are examples. The fact remains that no other driver has been exemplified to this level.

I will try to explain why this is later.

And I have seen F1 Racing voting Jim Clark as the best ever a couple of years ago! So who is the best ever then? I don't think that really means anything how magazines vote. Whatever they vote, they don't make it a fact that he was the best ever 80.98.174.230 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

he remains one of the most beloved Formula One personalities — opinion.

At numerous tracks on the F1 calendar until today one can see banners and even graffiti on the track with various slogans as "Senna Forever" and "Magic Senna" to name a few. Although these can be attributed to many legendary drivers in differing quantities, much of the reason why Senna is so loved by his fans does not stem from his driving ability.

Again I will try to explain why this is later.

He was accused of introducing a "video game" mentality of "win at all costs" into the sport, a legacy that was repeated often in the career of his successor, Michael Schumacher. — Can we back this up with some facts, some news stories perhaps? I'm aware a lot of people dislike Schumacher, so this is probably true, but without a reference it just seems like a dis.

Phrases that are often (frequently word for word) attributed to Senna. The first corner incident at Suzuka in 1990, where he slammed into Prost at 140mph+ in retribution to the actions of Prost a year earlier at that same track. In 1989 Prost and Senna had collided at slow speed when Senna attempted to overtake Prost and take the lead. Although blamed by then FISA president Jean Marie Balestre, stripped of his win and by subsequence that years championship, Senna had always protested his innocence.

Prost would admit many years later that he had infact "closed the door" on Senna. (F1 slang for slamming into an overtaking opponent).

Senna demonstrated his exceptional wet driving skills by humiliating his opponents at the wheel of an inferior car. — References? What made his car inferior? Plus, I don't like the use of the word "humiliating" here.

In F1 wet weather racing is considered to be a great equaliser. Speeds must be reduced and car superiority in horsepower or grip is eliminated. The rain demands great driver car control, ability and driving finesse.

The 1984 season was Senna's first in F1. Participating as an unknown rookie in a low level, non competitive car, the Toleman TG184, Senna had racked up three 16th places and a 13th place.

The first wet race of the season, the Monaco Grand Prix (a notoriously difficult circuit for racing, as it is run on regular streets) was terminated after 31 laps due to undriveable wet conditions. At the time the race was stopped, Senna was classified in 2nd place, and catching up to the race leader Alain Prost, at 4 seconds per lap.

In 1993, at Donington, Senna drove for the McLaren team. The MP4/8 although one of the front running cars was considered inferior to the leading Williams FW-15C of Prost and the factory Ford engine supplied B193 of Michael Schumacher and Riccardo Patrese. Some maintain that the Williams FW-14B and FW-15C were probably "the most technologically advanced cars that will ever race in Formula One".

Correction...It was the most Technologically advanced car comparative to the competition. The technology that has advanced in the past 14 yrs in F1 far surpass the Fw14-15. For instance, the Renault V-10 3.5 ltrs pumped out about 950 to 1000 horsepower on what they considered "witches brew" for fuel at a cost of 100 plus US $ per gallon. In 1995 the sized was reduced to 3.0 , in 1994 they were using pump fuel. By the time 2003 came around the Mercedes and Ferrari were putting out close to the same output in power. The Mercedes was able to reduce the angle and size of its v10 to gain better center of gravity and cooling, the alloys in some of the new engines would be worth its weight in diamond. F1 has progress transmission shiting to lithing speed, traction control has returned in different fashion. Reliability is almost unbelievable. Wing Size has been reduced time and time again and yet the G's keep comming back. And remember, the computer technology that goes into the software of these cars are unbelievble, in 1993,,,we were still running DOS or windows 3.11 so come on . Racing has been a life long passion of mine for nearly 30 yrs and I have seen many events ranging from IMSA to NASACAR and have seen some tremendus talent. Senna was fast, as fast as I have seen anyone, Mika Hakkinen was tremendusly fast and so is Michael and on any given day anyone of those 3 could out do the other. But I would suspect that if you put all 3 in the same car against each other, I would say Senna would have a slight edge, that is not fact but just opinion. DBS

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/cars_guide/4272031.stm

The start of the wet weather 1993 Donington Grand Prix, by way of its uniqueness is commonly referred to in racing lore as "the best lap ever."

Starting from fifth on the grid, Senna was first before the end of the first lap.

Results such as these have contributed greatly to the cult status of Senna's driving ability. In terms of driving a track lap at greatest speed; the qualifying lap, (a single lap, the time of which will determine race starting position), is considered a qualitative indicator of outright talent for speed driving.

Senna still holds this record for number of pole positions, eleven years after his death.

Ultimately the reasons why 'greats' are glorified is not solely because of their accomplishments in their respective fields. Much stems from personality, charisma and character.

It is here that one of the main reasons for Senna's cult following can be found. Senna displayed an as yet unseen depth of a will to win, an unparalleled singleminded and uncompromising desire to finish first irrespective of survival. This starkly contrasted with his behaviour out of the car, where his complicated, nuanced mannerisms, while often displaying melancholy were coupled to a conversation style which was soft spoken, non-confrontational and completely devoid of ego.

Or as Gerald Donaldson so eloquently puts,

'Though slight in stature he possessed a powerful physical presence, and when he spoke, with his warm brown eyes sparkling and his voice quavering with intensity, his eloquence was spellbinding. Even the most jaded members of the Formula One fraternity were mesmerised by his passionate soliloquies and in his press conferences you could hear a pin drop as he spoke with such hypnotic effect.'

A very private person, Senna shied away from celebrity status and glamour that accompanied his position. After his death it was discovered that he had donated millions of dollars to childrens charities, a fact that he, during his life had kept very secret.

By choice Senna's entire life was dedicated to one aim, striving to win. To outdo oneself. After an entire life in the pursuit of victory, his conviction was total. He died leading a Formula One race. Perhaps the unique duality of his character was most evident at the moment of his death. As track officials examined the wreckage of his racing car they found a furled, bloodsoaked Austrian flag. A victory flag that he was going to raise in honour of Austrian Roland Ratzenberger, who had died on that track the day before.

At his memorial service one million people lined the streets to give him their salute.

~Emre

Senna's brilliance is not in Q to anybody who ever watched him race. Those who know compare him to Jim Clark & Fangio, who are icons in GP/F1. Senna did not seem to know the meaning of "slow" (& I'm convinced it hurt his early career, by driving weak cars too hard). Monaco '84 is rightly a legend. It is not supposed to be possible to gain at 4sec/lap there, let alone in the rain, let alone coming from the back of the grid. Senna did all 3. And he was consistently quicker in the rain than everyone else, something only a handful of drivers (notably Caracciola) ever do: recall, only some 70 drivers have ever won an F1/GP event. In such an exclusive club, it's pretty hard to be called "legendary". Senna is. Mention him in the same breath with Fangio, Clark, & Michael, you'll get no argument from any fan; the only Q is, can you rank any of them above the others? I never saw Fangio or Clark, & as good as Michael is, Senna was more exciting to watch--& that's pure POV. Trekphiler 09:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

To say that Ayrton Senna is widely regarded as one of the greatest Formula One drivers ever is as close to an established fact as you can get. As is the fact that he still has a huge cult following . Only people who dont know about Formula One would dispute this. However i can see how someone who wasn't au fait with F1 would find some of the descriptions here over glowing in their praise , or weasely if you prefer, but i can assure you they arent over the top in this case.68.71.35.93 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to explain it. I can see it has been 12 years since he died. It seems like 1. The whole thing is just so surreal. The guy never even got scratched in any race, while always being a cut above the rest. A driver died that weekend, first one in 12 years, for Senna to die aswell the next day was the twillight zone. It just wasn't real. It didn't. Not then, and not 12 years on. Like the entire universe split off into a parralel branch and we were all taken along for the ride, continuing to this day. Back in the real universe he just got out of the car and things were normal and moved on. Whereas in this one, things don't feel right.

Sometimes I think that eventhough him dying out of nowhere and for no reason is a shock to us, it was actually an unwanted gift to him. Perhaps he deserved more than anyone to be a pure race driver. To have his life, his entire being be a racing driver. Maybe this is what a legend really is.

~Emre

Er yes, just returning to the article for a moment.. 86.16.223.203 12:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The unexpected success continued with a second place at Spain and a lucky win at Monaco. I remember the race. I don't remember Senna being "lucky," just that he outdrove a future world champion (Damon Hill) in a far superior car, while Alain Prost made a couple of dumb mistakes and put himself out of the running to win. No one except the Williams cars could beat him that season unless Senna had mechanical failure.

Link to european GP

There must be something wrong with that link. Because the article is in wikipedia.

Rede Globo TV

In Brazil, the Rede Globo television network, which is notorious for manipulating public opinion (due to its massive presence and size and resulting power) had a somewhat intimate relationship with Senna. Without accusing them of anything (since I don't have any hard facts), I'd like to point out the very curious fact that, for exactly one week starting with the accident that caused Senna's death, every single news show on Globo -- from the earliest morning show to the latest late-night show -- reported almost exclusively on subjects related to Senna and his death.

I'm not exaggerating here: I remember very clearly noticing that at the time. From one Sunday to the other, every single news show on Globo would have article after article on subjects related to Senna, with usually only one or at the most two small, spoken notes at the end of the programme on unrelated subjects. For example, I remember one edition of Jornal Nacional (the main daily news programme, and the most watched one in Brazil) during that week where only at the very end, before the credits, there was some a very brief spoken note, without any footage or images, about the major news story from before his death (the prosecution of major "bicheiros"), which was all but abandoned by Globo for that week.

If this had happened for one or maybe two days after the accident, that would have been ok or at least almost that, after all his death was a major news item. But I'd like to emphasize that this went on for the whole week -- as I said, on all of their news shows during the day, without exception. Plus, they quickly ran out of anything new or relevant to report on, so they kept on repeating information and, maybe even worse, reporting on totally irrelevant stuff like Senna's dog, his primary school teacher or things like that. In other words, there was clearly some kind of agenda behind Globo's decision of programming. What exactly I don't know, and all kinds of theories can be thought of.

I would really appreciate if someone were able to add to this information and present it in a relevant format.

Maybe we shouldn't go into much detail about it in this article, it could be added as more of a curiosity or trivia, and it should be explored in more detail on the article on TV Globo.

On the face of it, it doesn't sound like a conspiracy. To put it bluntly, I suspect it was that Senna in death struck a chord with the public, many of whom did idolize Senna despite his less appealing traits, and thus rated well. Such a posthumous media blitz always ends up canonizing people, and the less attractive bits get airbrushed out of the picture. There's plenty of examples of this - Princess Diana (if you read the saturation coverage in the Australian media, let alone the British, you'd think she was a secular saint murdered by an evil paparazzi conspiracy) is a particularly striking one. For some reason, she struck a chord with many people (particularly young women), and thus there was a huge demand for news, however trite, about her and her death for some time afterwards.

But, not being Brazilian and not having access to Globo, I didn't see the coverage. Maybe there was something extra to it. --Robert Merkel 15:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and I think that would justify a couple of days of exclusive AS-related coverage on their news shows, and maybe up to the end of the week with, say, 60% of the news time devoted to that; not 95% of the total news time of the network (remembering, once again, that happened from the earliest of the early morning shows to the latest of the late night ones). It was definitely exaggerated. It seems to me like Globo was trying to instill into the people a cult of his personality, turn him into some kind of hero or martyr. Also, noticed that the other channels did not do the same. -- tmegapscm

Edits of Oct 2005

Removed: "the greatest driver ever" POV Removed: "Ruthless driver" POV

"I don't think there's much dispute that Senna was ruthless, any more than that he was talented."

Ruthless, in "a ruthless driver (period)" (as you suggest) is synonymous with cruel, callous, merciless, unfeeling and heartless. These are not descriptive of Senna nor a summary of his general driving style. An appropriate word would be "tough".

In addition to this the Mclaren career section has always included: "On the track Senna could be ruthless."

But by all means lets stick to the description given by Senna's arch rival Alain Prost in his only interview given on the subject:

"Hmmm, yes, Senna was very tough in that way, from the start. Actually, one thing I really believe now is that it wasn't so much a matter of being that tough as having his own rules. He had them, he believed in them, and that was it."

Link: http://www.prostfan.com/senna2.htm

Eh, being a ruthless competitive driver isnt synonymous with "cruel, callous, merciless, unfeeling and heartless", it has a different context and a different meaning. --Bastion 05:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Black Box

Why is there no mention of the missing 1.6 seconds of videotape (look at http://www.cineca.it/sap/files/mpeg/out5.mpeg to see the part missing) and of the prosecutions allegations that the black box was damaged after the accident to remove all the telemetry?

"Fabrizio Nosco, the engineer who removed the two black boxes from Senna’s car after the crash, testified that “apart from a few scratches both boxes looked to be intact.”

Passarini said that Senna’s data recorder contained 20 memory chips, but only two were damaged. The two being those whose data would have been retained even when the power supply failed." --Bastion 04:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Going critical

Somebody should take out the whole going critical documentary section. That whole programme was a farce. It even spelled his name wrong. The National Geographic documentary seconds from death came to the same conclusion, reference that.

Imola 3rd fastest lap

I removed:

"and during this lap set the 3rd fastest time of the race"

Referring to the fact that Senna set the 3rd fastest lap of the Imola race on lap 6. This is incorrect, Senna's fastest lap is officially recorded as 1'44.068 for lap 1. This, compared to the fastest lap of the race set by D. Hill on lap 10; 1'24.335. I have no information what Senna's laptime for lap 6 was. I have left the remainder of the paragraph intact:

"Alboreto and other drivers of the era claimed that given his lap time, his tyres would have been at race temperature by the 7th lap and it was not a factor in the crash."

If someone has any information as to Senna's lap 6 time please provide it.

According to the official statistics, Senna crashed on Lap 6, so he would have no time recorded for this lap. Bretonbanquet 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact he went on to complete an entire lap under race conditions (the safety car having just retired) and that lap was the 6th. Why its time it's not shown by the official statistics I don't know. I saw recently that race and he really completes a lap before crashing, spending aprox 1:24 - 1:25 in the process.

Anyone who has the race on a DVD or some form of a video can see that, in fact, the crash occurs on lap seven, not six. All the sources that say he crashed on lap six, even f1.com, are factually incorrect. Conquerer 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone will still read this, but anyway I have a theory about Senna being listed as retired after 5 laps despite having finished 6. The race was stopped after his accident (lap 7). When the 2003 Brazilian GP was red-flagged, the leader had just started the 56th lap, and the final results were these of the 54th lap, following the rules. What I think is that they restarted Imola 94, on aggregate time, counting from two laps prior to the accident, this would be the end of lap 5. We would need a source to confirm this speculation, but I'm pretty sure that this it's the reason. Lap 6 existed, but it was disallowed after the accident, and lap 6 became the first after the restart.

That was it!!!! I've just seen the race restart and when Gerhard Berger finishes the first lap after the restart in the lead, it appears an on-screen lettering which reads "Gerhard Berger, Fastest Lap, LAP 6, 1:30.292". It would be great if someone can put up the video on Youtube or wherever to link it here, if necessary. Race was stopped at the start of lap 7 and was restarted by using the results at the end of lap 5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.136.230.26 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Reach the author

I am the author of major sections of this article. (Intro, wet weather, death, character, legacy, etc) If you have any comments or questions please mail me.

teamno1@(nospamming)yahoo.com

(remove the nospamming)

~Emre

Bloodsoaked flag

Do we know for sure that the Austrian flag Senna had in his car the day he died was found to be bloodsoaked? I don't recall much blood being evident, and it just smacks of sensationalism. Any proof of it? Bretonbanquet 01:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yvun6cUfgJE Video not safe for faint of heart. Shows blood on the ground after he was removed. I heard rumors that somthing pierced the back of his head, but have no source on this. --82.39.71.86 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance

I don't know why someone deleted the Categories for Ayrton Senna, the External links section and the Champions' infobox. Since lots of edits are done of this article, I could not identify the author(it's a hard work). Anyways, I restored those parts. I kindly ask people not to delete some part of the article without consensus. Mxcatania 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggest changes

Under the heading “Into Formula One” there was the words “he passed second place man (and future World Champion) Niki Lauda.” That is a half truth – Niki Lauda was already a double World Champion (’75 and ’77) then. He also won the 1984 World Championship at the end of that year. I changed it to “double world champion.

In that same paragraph, “This would have unfortunate consequences for Prost. Half points for a win was less than full points for the second place he would have earned if the event had continued to two-thirds distance, enough to be counted full race.” should be either omitted (because it got no relevance to the Senna topic) or expanded on: The reason the consequences was so unfortunate for Prost – not the other points finishers who also got half points- is because Prost missed out on that year’s World Drivers Championship by half a point. Half points for a win was 4,5 points, full points for second would have been 6. Prost could have been the World Champion by a 1-point lead that year. I did not change that yet- want to know if someone agree.

In “The Lotus Years” is the words: “At the end of 1985, he finished a respectable 4th in the World Championship with 38 points and four podiums (two seconds and two thirds).” He had 6 podiums that year – 2 wins, 2 seconds, and 2 thirds. I changed that.

In “Wet weather driving” is a statement: “Participating as a rookie in an uncompetitive car, the Toleman TG184, Senna had racked up three 16th places and a 13th place.” No- Senna’s first 4 results (Monaco 1984 – described just after that- was his 5th race) was a race retirement, two 6th places, gaining him 1 point apiece, and another retirement. Senna’s points results for the whole 1984 was 2 6th places, 2 3rd places and a 2nd place. I changed that.

Still under “Wet weather driving” is, under the description of the Donington GP “he went on to lap the entire field.” Is that correct? My sources say he lapped everyone except second-placed Damon Hill. I’m not sure, so I won’t change that.

Under “Character” is “When Senna died, doctors found the Austrian flag in his pocket.” Other sources tell me it was found in his race car, not on his person. Even another sentence in this article “As track officials examined the wreckage of his racing car they found a furled, bloodsoaked Austrian flag.” tells the same.

What is the relevance of the quote from the doctor regarding his death? It has practically nothing to do with the context of that section. It seems to be very anecdotal and unnecessary, borderng even on npov (religious). If someone can explain why it should be kept, please do, otherwise I will remove it in a few weeks. Rtcpenguin

Controversial driver

I read the Michael Schumacher article yesterday and there's a chapter in it called "Controversy", listing all of Schumacher's controversial issues and attitude. I think Ayrton Senna was just as much of a controversial driver and person as Schumacher, so such a chapter would be OK here as well.

Some of Senna controversies:

- Win at all costs mentality (it was invented by Senna, not Schumacher) - His rivalry with Prost within McLaren (accusastions from Prost that Honda gave better engines to Senna, verbal attacks of the two against each other etc.) - Vetoing Derek Warwick as a teammate at Lotus - Suzuka 1989/90 - and other incidents (e.g. he did the same in one of the races in 1985 for that Schumacher was punished in Monaco 2006 - blocking rivals in qualifying to keep his pole) - Hitting Irvine in 1993 Etc.

I seem to recall that, but when in 1985 did he do that?

This forum thread suggests it was at Monaco. DH85868993 14:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably was. I do recall hearing that, though I was not watching F1 back then. However, it would be a nice addition to the "Other incidents" article if someone would be capable of writing about it.

~~Hitting Irvine in the face had nothing to do with winning, it was an emotional outburst for Irvine unlapping himself and hitting Senna several times under braking. Senna went to the Jordan motorhome to talk to Irvine, but Eddie acted like an obnoxious know it all. The event, including a log of the conversation is on the net google it. But the rest is a good point, the win at all costs mentality was invented by Senna, not Schumacher, but the 2 mentalities are very different. It's difficult to explain but with Senna it was more instinctive, with Schumacher more calculating. I.e. Senna leading Prost at the Portugese GP driving them both within inches of the pit wall, it's suicidal, with the entire pack behind them. Running into each other in Suzuka at 140mph+.

These are very dangerous and purely emotional moments.

With Schumacher it is different, there it is more "bumping your opponent off at slow speed" i.e. the accident in Adelaide with Hill at 30 mph, in Jerez taking Villeneuve out at a hairpin. Those actions are obviously calculated attempts to take your opponent out.

So please remember there are different "Win at all costs" mentalities.

As teammates, Didier Pironi and Jacques Villeneuve were just as contentious as Senna and Prost a few years later, but we don't remember that because Villeneuve died before the feud went on too long. I would argue that the "win at all costs" metaility was already beginning to manifest before Senna ever got to F1.

Senna did veto Warwick as a teammate, for whatever reason, but to his credit, he was also the only top driver of his era who didn't insist on a clause in his contract that the team's No. 2 driver had to let him pass. In fact, he chided Prost for this after Prost had left McLaren. Jsc1973 19:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Quotes

I fixed the first quote entry of this section, to match his exact words from the press conference. Conquerer 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wet weather driving

The photo at the beginning of this section is Ayrton driving in dry conditions. It would make much more sense to have a wet weather photo, notably something from Donington. Conquerer 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Wet weather driving" section should be removed completely. No real sources or anything. Or actually, it should be removed for the exact same reason as on the Michael Schumacher page. It's really kind of funny (looks like favouritism) that on this Senna page the article remains, but is removed on the Schumacher page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be removed, though it could do with better citation and some of the phrases sound a bit "fannish" and could do with re-wording. I don't really think what is or isn't in the Schumacher article has any relevance here though. Kelpin 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why consistency has no relevance?

I think a section would be justified in both articles, both drivers had outstanding drives in the wet. More citation and less hagiography are required, though. -- Ian Dalziel 12:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Complete Results table

just added Senna's results table. - Aprithvi

Vandalism

I think we need to lock this article again. There's vandalism again. (by OrcineBovine). (Orcine Bovine writes: Vandalism is not editing comments like "Senna is the greatest F1 Driver of all time" to "Senna, along with his arch rival Alain Prost are considered to be amongst the greatest F1 Drivers of all time". I think the latter is much more credible than the emotional hyped accusation of vandalism.) check the Wikipedia definition of vandalism OrcineBovine 04:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OrcineBovine, this is your suggestion for the introduction:

Senna was ruthless on the track to the point of endangering other drivers, notably Prost on several occasions. His tactics went unpunished by F1 officials and in this respect he fundamentally changed the nature of the sport, by using what notable Autosport writer Nigel Roebuck termed as "terrorist tactics on the track"...[What is wrong with that? Lets be honest here, this view is widely hld amongst many drivers of that era

..]mythical proportions primarily in his home country of Brazil. A spectacularly talented driver, his numerous crashes with top tier drivers combined with an unyielding nature changed the ethics of the sport and was criticized by many.

Your suggested additions include (in bold):

-Prost supporters may say that Prost had the inside line, while Senna supporters may say that Senna's car was ahead (it never was) and that...

-Senna attempted an impossible pass and hit Prost's McLaren from the rear. It was a dumb move from Senna as if neither McLaren finished

Correction....Senna McLaren Finished. He went in got a new nose and beat Alessandro Nannini and was later disqualified for taking an illegal off road that was in fact longer than if he would have just rejoined the race at that point. Now if your referring to Prost's Ferrari in 1990 then yes both cars did not finish. DBS

In my (limited) experience with encyclopaedia articles, and my modest grasp of the English language, it seems to me that you have not quite understood how wiki articles should be written. In addition to this (judging from your grammar and POV usage) I believe you are perhaps too young to edit articles such as these. (OrcineBovine replies in defense: Well, I confess I am no expert on "how wiki articles should be written" and have no idea what you mean by POV usage, but I am close to half a century old, recently celebrated the 25th reunion of my masters degree in business - and regularly write business articles - The viewpoints expressed (and deleted) above are fairly commonly held by pundits who report on F1, notably Nigel Roebuck, James Allen, Jackie Stewart, Damon Hill and others. I completely disagree with the rather sanctified view of Mr. senna you adhere to)

Kind regards.

By the way, I edited that section of the article a few days ago, taking out the POV and correcting a few errors, also adding a bit more information. And since we're on the topic, it was in no way an "impossible pass" as Senna demonstrated that it was possible a few laps later by passing the new leader, Alessandro Nannini, performing the exact same pass before taking victory. And what was meant by "[Senna] hit Prost's McLaren from the rear"? It was a side-by-side collision, and to clarify, it was Prost who hit Senna, by turning into him.Conquerer 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Orcine Bovine: (in the future, start a new paragraph instead of embedding your response in brackets in mine, thus having me have to edit out yours separately)

"Well according to Niki Lauda, Nigel Roebuck (an eye witness) it was [an impossible pass]. A subsequent pass at the same spot is irrelevent. Any accident where someone is hit from the rear is the person in the rears fault - this is racing 101, Senna's front axle was at no point in front of Prost's - its a simple fact. I do not know what film clips you have seen, but I know of no single eyewitness or racing driver who has reviewed the footage that has come to [the] conclusion [that Prost turned into Senna]."

First off I watched that race live. Senna was catching Prost fast. Senna should have waited to pass him but he was going to get him. On that back straight Senna made up nearly 18 to 20 meters in the last several seconds, I am not sure exactly what happened as far as who over cooked the corner or who took the wrong line, but here is the kicker, Senna would not have been able to stay ahead through the second part of the SS, If you want to go to YOUTUBE and look you would see what I mean. All Prost had to do was just go through normally, but he knew because of what happened a year before that Senna would get him sooner or later and he had to stop it right there. Now I am talking about the 1989 Race. DBS

Regardless of who witnessed the event or how much experience they have in the field, saying Senna tried an "impossible pass" is an opinion -- what's impossible is for it to be fact that the pass was not possible, since clearly nothing on this Earth can verify this. Regardless of a driver coming from the rear, being driven into from the side is not necessarily the behind driver's pure fault. With Senna at the chicane, he was beside Prost (with a decent five foot length from Prost's nose and moving up to even two feet) for enough time to declare his position on the road as his own. Prost turned into Senna after having been beside him for a decent two seconds, and it's seen from the footage that Prost started turning in toward the chicane before the opening of the apex (to which, in effect, was part of him denying Senna, as he later admitted -- he saw him and knew what he was doing). Simply because one has the racing line does not grant them to hit the other car without fault. As for your claim that Prost did not turn into Senna, please watch the footage again -- Senna hugged the right of the road under braking and Prost turned in on him. What did not happened was Senna hit Prost as he entered the chicane -- quite the opposite: given that Prost was only around two feet ahead of Senna at the entry, it was him who hit Senna, whether he had the line or not. Senna was still braking and waiting for the apex as Prost began his turn despite that fact that Senna was right there. Conquerer 01:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To Say that any pass is impossible is incorrect. Any Pass is possible. Is the other guy willing to give you the line that is his or would he rather fight for it and make a point. To me Senna is numero UNO second to none. But on this day he made his mind up to take that corner no matter what. Proving a point and loosing a race to get into other driver's head that your willing to take it all the way or your getting out of the way won him many more races. You don't know what that other driver is willing to do or not do, so you cannot say that any pass is not possible. Base on personalities, yeah it was impossible but in reality you never know. DBS

Image in infobox

I replaced the image in the infobox which was copyright (claimed fairuse) with a different freely licenced image. This was changed to a different copyrighted image so I have reverted to the freely licenced image, [:Image:Ayrton Senna Imola 1989 Cropped.jpg]. Wikipedia guidelines state that this kind of image is preferable to copyrighted image, and as Copyrighted images are only Fair Use when no freely licenced alternative is available that claim may not be valid anyway. Alexj2002 11:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

        Indeed, but that racesuit will make the average reader assume he drove for Ferrari. The Dunnie

Even though "Honda" is clearly visible on the front of the driving suit and right underneath that picture his teams are listed. Conquerer 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

There are three 'citation needed' tags in the lead. Just to comment that I believe it is acceptable not to reference facts in the lead - the reason being that the lead should only summarise the content of the article, so any facts in the lead should appear elsewhere in the article and should be referenced there. I think it looks neater this way - and reduces repetition as well. Cheers. --4u1e 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Why is it more important?"

In response to your question on the history page, Ian Dalziel, having the inside line is always more important -- that's racing. If a driver is on the inside next to a driver on the outside before a corner, the outside driver cannot drive through the inside driver. He has nowhere to go and the inside driver has the advantage. I plan to change this back in a day or two. Conquerer 01:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Having the RACING LINE is what is important. As stated in the article, Senna was neither in the lead nor on the racing line. Just being on the inside of itself confers no priority, and there is certainly no way that is "more important" than having the lead or the racing line. I disagree strongly with your proposal to change the wording back. -- Ian Dalziel 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If two cars are side by side, as Senna and Prost were, the inside line is always more important. Senna was never ahead of Prost, as in his nose never passed Prost's nose, however he was only inches behind and therefore the inside line was more important. He had absolutely nowhere else to go since he couldn't run over the kerb and had no reason to give way to Prost, who was on the outside. I don't know if you've seen the incident or not, but Senna and Prost were right beside each other when the collision occurred. In saying that Senna was never actually ahead of Prost, which I left in there when I first edited it, it is meant that he was inches behind, but not at all far enough to have his inside line not have importance. Prost was ahead of Senna at the end of the straightaway before the chicane, but once they reached the chicane and started to enter it, Senna was ahead of Prost in the corner, since Prost had to turn inwards, and was closer to the Finish line in terms of track distance. Being ahead means everything on a straight road, but it's really irrelevant when two cars are side by side and the inside car, which is inches behind, reach a corner, since we're now moving in a completely different direction. If you watch Formula 1 or racing regularly, you should understand this. Conquerer 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a bit of POV creeping in here? For what it's worth, I have been watching "Formula 1 or racing" regularly since 1962, and I have watched that incident many times. Senna was half a car's length behind at best. Try one of the standard texts on competition driving - Paul Frère for instance. The racing line is the optimal line through the corner - nothing to do with being on the inside or the outside of the track. As it stands, the article states that Senna did NOT have the racing line, and was NOT in front. Being on the inside (and hopelessly off-line for the chicane) is NOT more important trhan those facts. -- Ian Dalziel 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, when a driver has to hit another driver to stay on the racing line, he should let off. Senna demonstrated that the move was certainly doable a few laps later, where Nannini did not turn into him as Senna had the same inner line. It was without doubt a risky move, which is what motor racing is all about, and Prost did in fact admit to closing the door, thus making him champion. Conquerer 22:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not that's true - clearly I don't agree, but that's my POV - it doesn't support the statement that being on the inside of the track is in any way more important than having the lead or the racing line.

This is an encyclopedia entry - it is not the place to make a partisan case for one or the other being to blame. What we should be seeking to do is to present the unarguable facts. -- Ian Dalziel 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cruft

This article is just pure with fancruft and reads like an memorial page, badly unsourced and severe WP:OWN issues in the article to remove the fact tags, and to readd the copyrighted images. This article needs help. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:EL and many other policies before reverting. 216.189.165.232 03:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It may well do - that is no justification for replacing it with nonsense. Please discuss your changes. -- Ian Dalziel 23:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

where did all the images off this article go? they almost all appear to of been deleted, why is this so? --Dan027 11:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

There is massive POV in the first paragraph - too many flourishing statements. I'd prefer to be pretty dry in my experinces with sport bios. Perhaps we should add something there that he did hold the pole position record for a long time to solidify it. It is certainly very hagiographic atm.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome?

Sorry to put such a farfetched suggestion, but I believe Senna had Asperger Syndrome. Having it myself, and knowing the attributes of an Aspie, I have found the following reasons why he *might* of had it:

• His ability to recall what his car was doing: this includes previous seasons;
• his ability to concentrate on just one thing (see fourth paragraph here);
• plus this paragraph:

"Ruthless and frequently misunderstood, Senna often did his best to hide a softer, highly emotional and compassionate side behind a self-constructed shell of aloofness and aggression. Yet this was the man who wept for Roland Ratzenberger and who, on the day of his own death, planned in victory to wave the Austrian flag as a tribute to his fallen contemporary." [1]

suggests that to me that Senna had Asperger Syndrome.

I do admit that this isn't documented, but fact is that Asperger Syndome hadn't been fully aware of until this millenium. But I'd agree that just these points are not enough and so I'll try and find a few more pieces of evidence.--Skully Collins 14:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. I hope this topic stays dead. -- ColinC, 1 October 2006

You might be right for all I know, but I don't think the theory would last long in the article, as it will always be speculation. Dw290 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess your right. One can only speculate, just some of these things seem just too "aspie" like. Anyway, no problem, it was just a suggestion.--Skully Collins ^Edits 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bernie at the guardrail?

Do we have a source for this story (in the Lotus Years section) about Bernie standing at a guardrail at Spa? It sounds highly dubious to me. Unless a source is provided, I'm taking it out.

Several days without comment. I took it out.

Pronunciation?

Isn't the IPA pronunciation wrong? I thought the "Ay" should have a double sound - as the previous description suggested. -- Ian Dalziel 06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's wrong; I corrected it. His first name is pronounced ahy-ur-tuhn ("ahy" as in eye), not air-tuhn. Conquerer 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Schumacher Visiting Senna's Grave

"Michael Schumacher attended his grave in 1995, but denied having done so just before his final race before retirement at Interlagos. However, he did attend the grave before his final Grand Prix."

This wording is very confusing -- what is it saying? Schumacher attended his grave in 1995 but in 2006 denied that he did attend his grave in 1995, or he denied visiting his grave before Interlagos in 2006? The next sentence seems to hint the former, however this directly contradicts the first few words of the first sentence. If the latter, however, there's still another contradiction. Perhaps whoever updated this simply forgot to add "It was reported" or something like at the beginning, but anyway, someone please clean this up -- someone who knows about this. Conquerer 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection Schumacher explicitly denied having visited the grave in 2006 when asked directly. If anyone has a copy of Autosport that covers the Interlagos race, I think Mark Hughes did his comment column on it. 4u1e 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

B-class

I've rated this article as B-class. Good coverage, but no references and could use work on the writing esp. NPOV. 4u1e 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's literally nothing more than my opinion by the way. If other editors disagree there's nothing to prevent them changing the assessment in the F1 project box above. GA and FA obviously require external assessment. 4u1e 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Table size

Several anons have been reducing the size of the "Complete F1 Results" table, which severely impairs visibility. I've been reverting, but just realized maybe it's not displaying properly on some people's computers? I would appreciate other opinions on this, just to make sure I'm not reverting valid edits. Fvasconcellos 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Suzuka 1989

There's some serious original research in the bit on the 1989 race in Japan - much has been written on this, it can easily be re-written as a neutral fact based account, rather than the current argument! 4u1e 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Portrait Photograph

Can we have a portrait picture of Ayrton Senna instead of the one showing him at Imola 1989? I think this would further enhance the article's introduction. Bag of marbels 28 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)—

Rain as Equaliser

In F1, wet weather racing is considered to be a great equaliser.

I thought this sentence would be confusing to people who don't already know what it means, so I have changed it to: In F1, wet weather racing is considered to be a great equaliser of cars; that is, the driver makes more of a difference.

--Tedd 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Article introduction is shortened constantly

I don't understand. The Michael Schumacher article introduction is very long, with many adjectives. None considers that POV. Why must Senna article introduction to be short? Rictad 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the lead could be longer, it's currently too short for an article of this size. The difference between this lead and the Michael Schumacher is that the Schumacher one largely consists of factual statements, and in fact has few adjectives, other than 'most', which is applied to measurable things like race wins. Phrases like "his rain driving exceptional perfomance" will be seen as not being neutral. Other things, like "For this reason, many regard him as the fastest driver that has ever been involved in Formula One Motor Racing.", while they may be true, are unreferenced and unacceptable in that form. Who are these people who regard him in this way, when did they say this? The Schumacher article uses a referenced quote ("Statistically the greatest driver") to get around this - then the view is not that of the encyclopedia, but that of some authority on the subject. Hope that helps! 4u1e 16:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I think "his rain driving exceptional perfomance" is a fact accepted for many and non measurable. Who disagrees? Maybe there are FIA statistics (wet declared races winners, like 1993 European Grand Prix). It was not "the best rain driver ever...". "Exceptional performance" does not means "the best". All F1 drivers are exceptional drivers. Ok, better "his exceptional rain driving skill...". Is this better? And "many regard him as the fastest driver that has ever been involved in Formula One Motor Racing" is referenced in the article (Wet weather driving Section). I am not a native english speaker (I am a Portuguese Wikipedia effective member). I hope that more english speakers contribue to article. Thanks! Rictad 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rictad. Glad you're taking an interest in this article, it could use some attention! In response to your comments, I don't disagree that Senna had exceptional wet weather driving ability, or that he is considered by many to be the fastest driver ever (although you will be aware that there are other candidates like Clark and Villeneuve). The problem is not the words, but their verifiability. Terms like 'best' or even 'exceptional' are opinions, not hard facts, even if they are widely or universally held opinions. What that means in practice is that we need to find notable sources who have expressed those opinions and reference or quote those sources. There is no need to reference things in the lead (although some editors prefer to do so), since, as you say, the material in the lead should only be a summary of what is in the main body of the article, which will already be referenced.

I must admit that I didn't check the referenced material under 'Wet weather driving skills' before commenting above. My apologies. However, having now done so, there are some problems with the referencing. Firstly, the Donington Park article is a self-published fansite, albeit a longstanding one. It is strongly recommended that we do not use such sources.

Secondly, the Donington report doesn't actually say that Senna had exceptional wet weather driving ability in general, which is the implication of "his rain driving exceptional perfomance"; instead it describes one specific example of that ability. In other words it doesn't actually support the claim being made.

Thirdly and similarly to the previous point, the article used as a reference does not say that "many regard him as the fastest driver ever involved in F1". It does say that Stirling Moss (one individual) thought him the 'greatest 'racer' of all time'. Racer is not the same thing as fastest, it's more to do with ability to pass others.

Sorry to go on at length, but is it clearer now what the problem is? I think the points made in 'Wet weather driving ability' can be referenced properly, but they are not at present. Cheers. 4u1e 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all, 4u1e. I agree. "Wet weather driving ability" needs fix (correct references). Rictad 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Senna's pole "record"

I'm confused about the claim that Senna's 65 poles from 161 races (= 0.404 poles/race) is a "record". It's neither the highest number of poles (that's 68, held by Schumacher), not the highest average poles/race (Fangio has 29 from 52 = 0.557 poles/race and Clark has 33 from 73 = 0.452 poles/race). It's certainly an impressive achievement, but I don't see how it's a "record". DH85868993 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree you now. It's a impressive mark, 0.404 poles/races over 100 races! But it is not a standard record. I will revert again. Rictad 16:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Zanardi crash and Senna

It's stated in the article that senna jumped out to see if he could help at zanardi's crash but it doesn't appear so in this youtube video. It looks like he crashed too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ciShahtWGRU

Looks like he approached much too fast under double waved yellows and crashed himself. Andretti arrived ahead of him and slowed down in plenty of time. Other clips on Youtube do show him going to the wrecked Lotus to investigate, but that's not quite what is implied by the current words. 4u1e 19:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it as not really being what wasimplied. I've also ref'd the previous para on a similar, but much more relevant, incident at Spa the year before. 4u1e 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Formula One Fatal Accidents

I'm not too happy with this appearing in the succession box. What kind of "Sporting Position" is that? Is there a trophy? -- Ian Dalziel 10:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hart engine a V6 ???

in the results section i see the Hart engine described as a V6? this is not true, the engine was a L4 !! Trulli 11:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Good pickup. Thanks. DH85868993 11:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Third Closest Grand Prix Finish

I noticed there were some recent disagreement on this from the edit page. The Official Formula 1 page [2] has a complete archive of F1 results. This clearly shows that the 2002 US Grand Prix had a closer FINISH (0.011 s) - however I would argue that as the top 2 drivers stage managed the finish (they were certainly not racing each other) it could be argued that this was one of the closest finishes rather than the closest races! The 1971 Italian Grand Prix had a gap of 0.01s between the top 2 and just 0.61s between the top 5 - however whilst there is no doubt that this was an incredibly close race timings in those days were only to the nearest 1/100th of a second (compared to the nearest 1/1000th in Senna's era and today), therefore in terms of the gap between the first 2 we cannot really be certain where The 1971 Italian race falls in the top 3. (It was easily the closest race ever as far as the top 5 were concerned though). I will therefore edit the page to say "one of the closest races" - hope this is an acceptable compromise? Kelpin 17:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Licence plate

This element of the Trivia section:

• In 1993, Senna bought a Mercedes-Benz 600SL for personal use in Brazil, and registered it in Porto Alegre, the capital city of Rio Grande do Sul, some 800km from Sao Paulo city, in order that he could obtain a number plate with the letters "CSE". The letters and numbers spelt : CSE 8888 (Champion SEnna 1988).

has been questioned by 200.219.132.20 who wrote:

• (doubtful - licence plates beginning with "C" letter are issued in São Paulo state, not Rio Grande do Sul)

I've added a {{cn}} tag. DH85868993 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just removed - i did a cursory glance and saw no mention of this in "major media" and don't know how it enhances the article at all. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Greastest of All Times

What's the deal with the "It" instead of he in these quotes, are they actual quotes or have they been translated from English to some other language and back again? I'd correct it, but I'd like someone else to verify. Rajohnas 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The whole swathe of quotes have clearly come from a translation into another language and been translated back using a translation engine. I've deleted them - again. It's a pity in a way, they are genuine and at least some of them probably do merit inclusion, but they would have to be in English! -- Ian Dalziel 09:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)