text:
Talk:Danica Patrick

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iz ro.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RC tags
The article has two categories refering to Patrick as a Roman Catholic, and a Catholicism convert. However, at no point in the prose is her religious affiliation mentioned. I believe that somewhere (perhaps WP:CAT) that in biographical articles, only categories that are supported in the text should be included. Either the cats should be removed, or, if it is found to be significant, referenced, verifiable prose should be added to the article somewhere. Gentgeen 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. Zue Jay (talk)  02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the categories were never removed or were but later replaced. I just removed the two Roman Catholic categories and the Serbian-American category because nothing in the article supports any of them. Aleta  Sing 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also removed the Irish-American categories for the same reason. Aleta  Sing 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fix the banner on the left side
It says that she has one win but her best finish is 7th in 2007. 99.172.137.121 (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008
 * Best season finish not individual race finish. 128.227.87.177 (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

HS Cheerleader
The article currently states that she was a HS cheerleader in 1996 -- which would have made her twelve. Definitely not impossible, but a little strange. —  Music  Maker  5376  16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it would have made her 13 or 14 depending on whether it was spring (13 turning 14) or fall (14). Her birth date is in March 1982. I'd still like to see a citation on that fact, though. Ncjon (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Not even all that strange - 14 is a typical age for an incoming high school freshman. Schoop (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Shes half Serbian
How is she "american" when her father is Irish and her mother is Serbian and shes got a Serbian name: Danica!
 * Who came up with this Serbian origin talk? Her name Danica is Scandinavian version (daneeka), not Serbian (danitza)? her father T.J is of irish origin, and mother is american!

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

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

Let me look through the Martin Luther King Jr. pages are erase the 'African' from African-American because he is simply an American. I'll also call my American friends with Mexican ancestral heritage (formerly known as Mexican-American) and tell them that their Mexican heritage is no longer relevant since they are two generations removed from their immigrant grandparents. I would doubt that 'Bev' finds her ancestral origins to be as irrelevant as you find them. The choice of her daughter's name is one clear indication that 'Serbian-American' means something to the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.234.79 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. MLK Jr's ethnicity is directly relevant to his notability; Danica's is not. Kenhullett (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you all are missing the point. My principal, who is black, is offended by the moniker African-American. As he says he is "a black American man." His words. "He wasn't born in Africa, nor does he ever want to go to Africa." This bullshit was started years ago by some self fullfilling people who have nothing better to do. It's the same one's teaching our school kids that blacks are descended from Egyptian kings and queens, which in the words of my former principal is "utter BS"76.177.132.252 (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't see it's a big deal to leave it in. I certainly didn't know she had Serbian (or Irish, AFATG) BG. It also explains the origin of an unusual (to me, anyhow ;) ) given name. Does it have to have earth-shattering significance? Would you delete Craig Ferguson's BG? Or Emma Samms'? Greta Scacchi's?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  09:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Think you're resurrecting an old conversation here, Trek. Recent edits have been about her nationality, which is certainly American: there is no country called 'Ireland-Serbia', that I'm aware of! Regarding her ancestry, it's fine to mention it if it's something notable that has been written about her in a reliable source. Otherwise, it's trivia: everyone on the planet has a mixture of different ancestries. Finally, I'm not sure the (unref'd?) Serbian story explains the name - as mentioned above the pronunciation is wrong for a Serbian source. And unless her mother is a Serbian national, she's not 'half-Serbian' either. 4u1e (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

<--Looks like it. :( If it hadn't been vandalized, I probably would just have ignored it, too. Oh, well. As for the rest, Serbian, Swedish, whatever, I think there's room for a certain amount of ethnic pride; I wouldn't drop it just because "everybody" can claim it. Not everybody is a woman Champ car racer.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And not everyone has a bio on Wikipedia ;-) Notability is, as ever, the watchword. 4u1e (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do. ;D ;D Darkseid  what do you mean, bow before Zod?  17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you're a very, very lucky boy, girl or other non-gender specific entity. :D 4u1e (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a pretty good genealogy of her here. Her mother's ancestry is entirely Norwegian. Her father's isn't traced very far back. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

First Win Claims
See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport

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

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

 * That's what I've been trying to figure out - please change the reference, then, to one that is correct; I don't resent such a change to references, just darn well make it. I was just looking into the F1 because I was figuring top-tier, not feeder series. An article on Females in motorports, or some such, might be in order. Zue Jay (talk)  04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately they all have the same misstatement, presumably from picking up the same AP article. Kenhullett (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Take a gander at this one (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/sports/othersports/21patrick.html?_r=1&ex=1366430400&en=9540f543d1680315&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin). Any major gaffes in that? It specifically says American-sport, not European, which would invoke F1. Zue Jay (talk)  04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Looks ok; I'll change it. Funny that NY Times got it right while the sporting press, including Speed TV didn't. Kenhullett (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Ha! Eh, its all for S&Gs anyway. Newspapers have to be good for something besides the litter box. Zue Jay (talk)  04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Despite being SI, this one is correct (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/racing/04/20/patrick.japan300.ap/index.html). Zue Jay (talk)  04:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm aware this discussion took place a long time ago, but I myself think that the statement should follow the way they say it themselves on the IndyCar website here: Patrick, competing in her 50th IndyCar Series race, became the first female to win a major auto racing event on a closed-course circuit.
 * If the IRL define it that way, why shouldn't the Wiki article do the same? TheChrisD Rants • Edits 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it isn't true? IndyCar's marketing propaganda isn't concerned with facts, Wikipedia is. Kenhullett (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They are still likely the most reputable source, given they sanctioned the event she won. I've looked through a couple of the other references, and some of them now return 404's, so are they any other currently-active sources?
 * Also, the IndyCar video description for the Indy Japan 300 states: Danica Patrick makes history by being the first female to win a major motorsports event. TheChrisD Rants • Edits 00:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The references currently in the article all say "first IRL" or "first IndyCar" winner. I do not consider IndyCar.com a more reliable source than the New York Times, as IndyCar is selling itself and part of that product is Danica, where the newspaper is only looking to sell, well, newspapers. And despite my lack of enthusiasm for Fox, the Fox Sports page also says first in IRL. If the SI 404 articles are what's bothering you, a quick search of SI.com yields this and this . It really comes down to the details of the one line: if you say "first female to win a major motorsports event" the word "major" becomes subjective and you neglect notables such as Shirley Muldowney; you can try saying "closed circuit motorsports event", but now you've neglected all the various Formula car series as well as other versions of motorsports such as NASCAR, dirt track, motorcross; so, you try "North American closed-circuit open-wheel event", now you gotta look at the time stamp because Simona de Silvestro won her first North American open wheel race on April 20, 2008, oh wait, she was the second woman to win in the Atlantics division, well crap. And remember, the word "major" is subjective. So trying to word it any other way seems to produce a ridiculous mouthful, particularly when a WP:Reliable source says "IndyCar". Zue Jay  (talk)  02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ZueJay and Ken are right: the IRL statement is not just wrong, it's ludicrously so. See the lengthy discussion here for examples of about 10 other women who have won at various levels that could be called major, over the last 70 years. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ZueJay, in that second SI reference you used, it states "first female" ever to win a major auto race. In my opinion, the word "major" it utilised to signify a top-level series in motorsports - such as Formula One, IRL and the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. Yes, the Atlantic Championships are (or at least were) a feeder series to the IRL/Champ Car, but I don't think that they are what I, and some of these articles, consider to be "major". TheChrisD Rants • Edits 11:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chris, just taking the least arguable cases of other women having won 'major' closed course races against multiple opponents:
 * In 1980 Desire Wilson won two races in the World Sportscar Championship, which was an FIA sanctioned championship, and the highest tier of sportscar racing in the world. (She also won a Formula One race, in the British Formula One Series - you could argue that it was only a national series, although of course so is the IRL ;-))
 * In 1932, Elsie Wisdom and Joan Richmond won the first Brooklands International 1000 Mile race. There was no sportscar world championship in those days, but it was a top tier race. Their competition included Malcolm Campbell, Tim Birkin and Earl Howe among others. 4u1e (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jannine Jennky drove a Bugatti Type 35 to outright victory in the 1928 Coupe de Bourgogne, a Grand Prix race which counted towards the French Championship that year. That may sound as if it was not major, but there was no European or World Grand Prix championship that year.
 * These are each the top level of competition that existed at the time - they are unarguably 'major'. Patrick is simply not the first woman to win a major closed course auto race. She is the first woman to win an Indycar race. I suspect that the problem is that because all of these events are some time ago, and all were in Europe, some of the current American press were just unaware of them, and made incorrect statements. 4u1e (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Denise McCluggage-nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.96.73 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Manske info
Removed because it's terribly irrelevant. An IndyCar racer (and especially this one) is of a much higher level of fame than a NASCAR reporter, and the shared experience has nothing to do with either one reaching their current levels of fame. Lambertman (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You should do a tad bit more research, because actually Nicole Manske has worked on the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Radio Network as a pit reporter every year 2005, 2006, 2007, for the Indianapolis 500. She is expected to return to the crew for 2008. Note that the article cited is from indy500.com talking about how the two "cheered" together, and how their paths crossed again at Indy. There is some reasonable relevance. Doctorindy (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll grant you the higher relevance. I still think having this info here would benefit Manske far more than Patrick. Lambertman (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to make a big deal about it either way, I mean we're talking about "cheerleading"...we should be embarrased! Doctorindy (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Cheerleaders are one of this country's finest natural resources. ;) Lambertman (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Strongly agree. --CaptainVlad (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ross - thanks for clarifying where you were coming from with the NPOV tag. Just to be clear where I'm coming from, while acknowledging that men and women are different (Duh!), I've got no time for any view that women (or men) can't do any particular activity. And Button's comments are just silly. The weight thing is a real, albeit minor, effect (it would affect acceleration/deceleration and cornering speed). In my opinion, complaining about it is a bit silly - it's also an advantage to have better reaction times, better peripheral vision or greater upper body strength: are those things unfair?
 * Nonetheless, such comments have been made and quite widely reported, so they should be in here somewhere.
 * My suggestion, as a short term fix:
 * Change the heading from 'Controversy' to 'Criticism'. As Ross says, this is not actually controversy.
 * Delete the comments from Button. They're from a lifestyle piece for a men's magazine, which is not a serious source for this kind of thing and Button really didn't say anything of any interest.
 * Start a para off with something like 'Several male drivers have made negative comments about Patrick's ability, as a woman, to race successfully'. Follow that with one negative comment as an example. I suggest that Petty's is the best one.
 * Look for some positive comments and, assuming that there are a reasonably number of them, add one of those as a counter.
 * How does that sound? 4u1e (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Having a criticism section would make the entire article NPOV because no other drivers have a criticism sections. I have no problem with keeping the criticism controversy header for the section - but, it needs to be balanced with some positive comments. I don't really think Button's comment is the problem. The problem is not having a balanced section. Also, one positive comment still doesn't balance all of the negative comments. --RossF18 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The above suggestions all sound good to me. Button's comments especially need to go;  the source has already been noted, but more than that, what he said could likely have been in jest.  Petty's comment, I agree, is the one that needs to stay.CaptainVlad (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ross, I take it we agree that criticism of Patrick should be included, since it has happened (however incorrect or illogical it might be)? The best solution is actually to build the material into the body of the article and not have a controversy or criticism section at all. However, that takes a lot more work to find ways of welding it seamlessly into the text. Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving 'equal time' to both views. (see WP:NPOV) The section does need to be balanced with positive comments, reflecting the degree to which those positive comments exist.
 * I'll edit as I suggested above and have a look for positive comment on Patrick's driving. Ross and Vlad, would you mind having a look as well and posting any relevant quotes here or putting them straight into the article? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some possible sources for positive comments:
 * www.autosport.com
 * www.wheels.ca
 * www.autoweek.com
 * Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I have nothing agianst having a controversy section. Again, the section itself is not the problem. It just the fact there is nothing but negative comments in that section. Balance it out, and you have a perfect controversy section. A section titled criticism would just have ctitisim, and then you'd have to have a section titled Praise to put the praise into that section. Having good comments in a criticism section is silly. How is it criticism if there are good comments as well. Controversy is a better title because there both good and negative comments. I wasn't saying take out negative comments or rename the section. I was saying make the argument more neutral by adding more positive comments. And I do know that NPOV doesn't mean giving "equal time" to both views. If there are no equal view on the other side, it doesn't make the article NPOV. Just because Hitler is cast in a wholly negative light, that doesn't make the article NPOV. However, when there are in fact sufficient information for a balanced view, not having that balanced view is NPOV. Even if you don't give equal time to both points of view, having not a single positive line does make the section NPOV. Equal time is not the goal. But neither is no time. --RossF18 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure what we're arguing about here! I changed the title to 'Criticism' because you correctly pointed out at the top of this thread that the contents of this section are not 'Controversy' as such. If I have misinterpreted what you meant, please change the section title back to 'Controversy'. I really don't mind! Ah, I see you have changed it. Thanks. :) 4u1e (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding positive comments, we seem to be violently agreeing. I think we should have suitable positive comments in the section. Do you feel any of the positive comments from the links I posted above would be suitable? If not, do you have any other positive comments about Patrick to suggest? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that you can't have a controversy with just one point of view, but in this case there are in fact two points of view - one that Patrick is good driver and another that she is not. Before, the controversy section presented just one of these points of view and thus did not present the two views of the contoversy. Having added a few quotes to balance it out makes the section now suitable for a controversy heading. --RossF18 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've removed Burton's positive comments, because they unbalanced that para to two 'pro' and one 'con', and in general she is if anything (rightly or wrongly) more criticised than praised by other drivers. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Button comments should be in; what makes them important is that he is a Formula One driver; the fact that said them to a men's magazine is counterbalanced by the fact...that he is a Formula One driver (and winner of a single race in his own field, incidentally). Likewise, Richard Petty's comments, specifically about Danica, but alluding to his belief that automobile racing will never be a sport where women do as well as men, should also be present for their specific identification of her/allusion-to-her-fame, by the speaker. --Chr.K. (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Button's comments ought to be relevant. Unfortunately, what he is reported to have said is that she has big boobs and the mechanics might find it hard to concentrate when strapping her in. I find it hard to accept either of those statements as a significant addition to the discussion. The footnote does mention that he was critical of Patrick, which is giving Button more credit than he deserves - although he may have been misquoted, of course! 4u1e (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Racing ability" section is subjective partisan banter.
The "Racing ability" section of this page is subjective partisan banter dedicated to veiled character assassination and does not reflect a neutral point of view. Marty Roth and Milka Duno among other IndyCar drivers do not have such sections despite having zero top-10 finishes in their IndyCar careers. This entire area should be removed, it is sexist, reeks of selective enforcement and is without merit. Katherine Legge, Sarah Fisher, and Lyn St. James are all spared such treatment, but Danica Patrick remains the focus of vicious attacks from those with an agenda. Shame of Wikipedia and the webmasters assigned for not providing effective governance to limit such overtly prejudice-laden content.

--Thebatsignal (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Read the section again. The paragraph regarding weight distribution is moot given new guidelines and is more historic in nature, with a line regarding power steering providing some counterpoint. Further, the following two sentences: "After Patrick's IRL win, she was praised by many drivers. NASCAR driver and former IRL champion Tony Stewart, for example, said "I think obviously she's got talent; she's been successful in every form of racing she's been in so far and I don't see why she wouldn't be successful here [in NASCAR]."[27]" provide further counterpoint for the negative points. While, granted, there are more negative comments than possitive, it's not just negative comments. Patrick just needs to control her temper a bit and be more careful when talking to fans and reporters given the current instant news era. As far as Legge, Fisher, and St. James, I don't think it's about being "spared such treatment" but about some drivers keeping their heads down while others butting heads and eliciting some polorizing opinions. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no governance, that's the point. It's a democracy with oversight very much escheud (sic). Most, if not all, prejudice-laden content will quickly be edited out, if truly objectionable or it'll be clear that the article is under dispute. With this article, see the above discussion.--RossF18 (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your sentiment. You stated "Patrick just needs to control her temper a bit and be more careful when talking to fans and reporters given the current instant news era". Who are you to pass judgment? This section of Wikipedia remains highly discriminatory in tone, reflects pejorative meaning upon women and a lack of a neutral point of view. The Bob Margolis of Yahoo! Sports "drama queen" quote is highly subjective, sexist, and reflects a lack of journalistic integrity among other concerns and does not merit inclusion. If this section is to be fair, it should include in detail the apologies that Patrick has been given secondary to the sexist treatment she has been subjected to from the likes of F1 CEO Bernie Eccleston among others to provide perspective to readers.http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?series=irl&id=2092194--Thebatsignal (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * First, given that wikipedia is a democracy, your point would be outvoted by most editors (a few comments of whom you see in the above section). Second, I don't think I was passing judgment on Patrick. If Patrick wants to fight and go after drivers after the race, that's her business. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported. The fact remains, it is an era of instant news with cameras everywhere and if she decides to get into a fight with a fellow driver, either verbal or physical, it should be reported, as it's news. You shouldn't try to hide it, if it happened. Third, you don't seem to distinguish between Wikipedia and cited news sources and quotes by other drives. It's not like editors of Wikipedia took it upon themselves o call Patrick a drama queen, which would of course be very discriminary in tone. But, the point is that the quote was made by a well known fellow race car driver whose opinion, if properly balanced, does have some weight. If your argument that the racing as a sport is sexist, well, that's not an argument to delete things from Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not pass judgment. It's not a person. People do that and thus it's reported. The fact that you think it's "highly subjective, sexist, and reflects a lack of journalistic integrity," is really your own subjective opinion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and builds articles by mutual consensus. If journalists are sexist for reporting on Patrick's scuffles, well, maybe you should contact them. However, taking out all the negative comments and leaving only the praise and positive comments would be biased as well. In fact, if you actually take the time to read the above discussion, you will see that there was a quote that was judged by editors to be totally "off-the wall" and was removed. Other comments were judged balanced enough by other statements. Also, you are more than welcome to include comments about Patrick either issuing or receiving appologies to or from drivers. But, if Eccleston is biased, it's on him, not on Wikipedia for noting that Patrick has promted these comments. If anything, it reflects negatively on the people who made these comments about Patrick, not on Patrick herself. Also, criticism doesn't automatically equal sexism. Noone is above criticism for their actions (either Patrick or her fellow drivers who don't seem to want to give her respect) and we do not sensor per subjective standard of what is sexist or not. On a side point, note that neutrality doesn't really mean equal amount of points from both sides. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." see Neutral point of view. The fact that Patrick is viewed by many sexist drivers in a way that the article describes is a significant view with published and reliable sources. It's not presented with bias. It's just the facts of the comments. Reporting on what others have said doesn't equal advocating what they said and if you have concern for how it may be perceived, add some sourced statements. "The policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them."Neutral point of view/FAQ. Further, the comments by other drivers really do not meet the undue weight requirement for deletion: As per our undue weight policy, large sections of text expressing a minority or fringe point of view could hinder our primary purpose as an encyclopaedia by leaving the reader confused as to what the academic consensus on a subject might be. Likewise, Wikipedia is not intended for advocacy, so text which simply advocates a point of view, but offers no information should be deleted." This is not the case in this article. We are not advocating that Patrick is actually a drama queen, but revealing what others have said, both for and against. "Neutrality is not centrality. Wikipedia articles are not written to imply that all positions are equal; Wikipedia articles are to be written in a way that does not evaluate positions. By writing from a neutral point of view about something to which you're opposed, you are not implying that the belief is equal, you are merely accepting that an encyclopedia is not the place to be evaluating the contrasting views. You may believe that the other opinion is wrong objectively. You are not contradicting that belief by accepting that Wikipedia is not the place to demonstrate that to other people before it has become accepted human knowledge."--RossF18 (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You state that "your point would be outvoted by most editors"... what metrics do you have that evidence that? You have absolutely no data to substantiate such. In addition, a Wikipedia Editor stating "Patrick just needs to control her temper a bit and be more careful when talking to fans and reporters given the current instant news era" reflects subjectivity and lacks a neutral point of view. Wikipedia Editors are not supposed to pass judgment or selectively enforce regulation depending upon their own prejudice which you verbalized within that statement. This section of Wikipedia remains highly discriminatory in tone.--Thebatsignal (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I keep trying to get you to read the above discussion. There, at least 3 editors, besides me, agree with my point of view. And note that just because I expressed a subjective opinion on the talk page, that doesn't mean that the article itself is subjective or not neutral. Talk page discussions don't have to be neutral since we're trying to convince people with arguments. There is no rule that editors "are not supposed to pass judgment." I can pass judgment all I want, as long as it's in the talk page and the article itself is balanced and edited by mutual consent between several editors, which it is. And I am not sure who you're referring to when you say that editors should not "selectively enforce regulations depending upon their own prejudice." First, all regulations are enforced, period. If you can find a contrary regulation to those I discussed above, you're more than welcome to point it out. As far as I can tell, there is only one regulation dealing with neutrality and I don't see how having to enforce the one regulation that applies is selectively enfrocing regulations depending upon opinions. Second, I don't think I am prejudiced and nothing in my above posts reflect that. You keep coming back to my statement regarding Patrick's need to control her temper. As my posts after that comment clarify, I wasn't passing judgment on her temper. She does has a temper as many videos confirm, but more power to her (as I've already said above). The point remains, however - while Patrick is more than free to have a temper and voice her disagreements, just because other drivers don't have a similar temper, doesn't mean that we should hide the fact that Patrick does have a temper. The article doesn't put her down for having a temper. It doesn't pass judgment, and neither do I. It's for the reader to decide whether to be a fan or not and judging by Patrick's popularity, her fiery behavior and passion for the sport is one of the things that attracts people to her and to the sport. So, I really don't think you argument is convincing regarding the fact that pointing out her temper = discrimination. But given that there is still a dispute and that it doesn't appear that either of us is convinced by the other's points, the article would stay as is until a third more impartial editor can break the tie, so to speak, per Third opinion and Dispute resolution. --RossF18 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly evidencing a discriminatory and selective view by citing that "Patrick is more than free to have a temper and voice her disagreements, just because other drivers don't have a similar temper." Racing ability has nothing to do with temper. Tony Stewart, Alex Tagliani, Tomas Scheckter, A.J. Foyt, Tony Kanaan, and Sam Hornish Jr. all had actual fights with punches thrown (against drivers or race officials) and evidenced more than a "similar temper" but none of those drivers have discriminatory sections on Wikipedia dedicated to veiled character assassination because the editors do not care for her "temper".

By the way, an objective editor would have included Patrick's performance at the 2009 Long Beach Grand Prix in the supposed "Racing Ability" section since she started at the back in 22nd and finished in 4th (a net gain better than any other driver on the grid).

In addition, the "Indy 500 results" section is also incorrect. Patrick drove a Panoz Honda in 2006 for Rahal-Letterman Racing... not a Dallara. The photo on your page is from the 2006 Indianapolis 500 and the chassis clearly has a triangular airbox and a non-blistered nose.

--Thebatsignal (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I vote for deletion of this section. Some of it may be relevant to include in other sections.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thebatsignal seems confused regarding the authorship of the article and the whole concept of multiple editor edited article. Nothing in my comments suggests that it's my article and if you see a problem, please fix them yourself instead of blaming me, for some reason, for mistakes found in the article. As far as temper and racing ability heading, the section was previously titled criticism, so if you rather the section be titled that instead, you're more than welcome to change it. And before commenting regarding other drivers' article, take the time to read them. A direct quote from Tony Stewart's article is:

The 2001 season was not without controversy, however. Jeff Gordon pulled a "bump and run" on Stewart to gain a better finishing position in a race in Bristol, and it resulted in Stewart retaliating in a post-race incident by spinning Gordon out on pit road. Stewart was fined and placed on probation by NASCAR. He got into further trouble at Daytona, when he confronted a Winston Cup official after ignoring a black flag. At the same race, he also got into an incident with a reporter, kicking away a tape recorder. He confronted the same NASCAR official at the race in Talladega after refusing to wear a mandated head-and-neck restraint. Stewart was not allowed to practice until wearing one and only managed to practice after his crew chief, Greg Zipadelli intervened. His fines and probation periods resulting from these incidents have earned Stewart a reputation of having a hot-temper, and he became NASCAR's "bad boy".

I'm not sure how the above quote is different than pointing out that Danika also has a temper. It has nothing to do with her racing ability. A temper is a temper. Every driver who is generally known (not just by your own opinion) for a fiery temper has at least some commentary regarding this. The section is just mislabeled. Also, if you prefer (and as Amedeofelix suggests) you can always merge the section into the article itself to take some focus of having a separate section regarding the controversy. However, I still would argue that nothing in my comments is discriminary and your repeated comments in this regard do not make it any more true. First you claimed that the section was discriminary because it commented on her temper, than you moved on to accusing me of discriminating against her (assuming somehow that I wrote the section), then when I specifically said that I don't care whether she has a temper or not (a reverse of your first objection), you continue to accuse me of discriminatory comments. Clearly, anything I say regarding Patrick's temper will be discriminary in your eyes. I don't think I have ever said that her temper had anything to do with her racing ability, and the title (or mistitle) of the section has nothing to do with me. If you continue to accuse me of discriminatary comments and given my lack of desire to further attempt to prove that nothing in my comments is discriminatory, you'll have a discussion on this point only with yourself since I will reply only to new points of business. --RossF18 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, renamed title a better option.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section is appalling!
The "Controversy" section is appallingly POV. The section is basically a personal reflection on Danica's character & the way she has handled her career.

The author of the section has cleverly pulled together specific citations designed prove an argument of his or her own making -- namely, that Danica Patrick is media-obsessed and draws too much attention to herself and (b) is given significant advantage due to her "low weight" (read: "the fact that she's a woman"). Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to this article. Patrick is an athlete. This article is notable because of her success and recognition stemming from and associated with her athletic performance. Part of a professional athlete's job is promotion. Whether or not it is excessive - this is not a judgement that Wikipedia authors are allowed impart into an article. (Although this is not one of them, there are some articles that are permitted to offer judgements. These are articles about artists and their works of art. In these certain cases, one can write about opinions of artwork if they can be supported by citations to recognized critics in the field and are given in context of other, contrary criticism. However, this doesn't apply to this article because (a) the opinions being given are about her character and persona and (b) Danica Patrick isn't an artist.)

Regardless, some of the citations used were from haphazardly collected opinion articles (not typical journalistic covering a subject neutrally), and all of the citations were cherry-picked; they contained an agenda. The author took a particular point of view and then collected citations that supported his view and ignored those that opposed it.

It is not OK to write a section that is mostly a collection of personal attacks and mudslinging -- the usual fodder that circulates about the social and professional scene of a given sport. The fodder comes from all places but legitimate journalism on the sport itself. It is about everything but the sport itself. If you want to include this type of information, then why not also add it to the articles on other drivers besides Danica Patrick? Why don't articles on baseball players and football players go into the gossip, rumor and opinion cycle that one finds on the net and the opinion side of ESPN? There are criticisms and insults lobbed back and forth all different drivers all the time. But, somehow, they don't end up in the articles on these drivers. So why is the Danica Patrick article singled out for this kind of pointed, frivolous criticism section? I'll let you all do the math...

Needless to say, I'm deleting the tripe and leaving the bit about her being a female driver and the controversy over it. I think that's better than clogging the article up with all of the necessary template messages ("POV-section," "Unbalanced," "Unencyclopedic," "Remove-section," etc.). It's fine to have a section on the controversy over her being a female driver. But you cannot turn it into an agenda piece on why there shouldn't be female drivers. It's a debate. Some drivers have resisted the rise in the number of females in the sport (in some cases, for real sports-related reasons and, in others, for no reason besides the fact that women "shouldn't drive race cars"), and, on the other hand, some drivers have supported women joining the competition. It's fine to report on that. Just use integrity please. Report on it in a neutral, accurate and respectful manner. Lose the agenda.

Thanks. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * If you read other articles regarding Nascar drivers, especially Tony Stewart's article, there is a lot of similar information included. The weight issue was actually the most impartial part of the section as agreed upon by other editors besides you. It was an actual dispute in racing and prompted a change in how weight is distributed. As far as other drivers, I don't know of any drivers who possed in the Swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated, not once, but twice. If Patrick wasn't a woman, she wouldn't be posing in the swimsuit issue. What agenda is that? You accuse your fellow editors (the section does not have one "author") but then delete things in line with your own point of view with no debate. And remember, neutrality does not mean equal weight to point of views. Read some of the policies.--RossF18 (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it is right. I remember hearing about the weight distribution issue, but there aren't any reliable sources to back it up, unless I'm missing something. Hopefully they can be found so that discussion can be on the talk page. tedder (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Please do not try to remember. Actually read things. If you actually read the section in question, the following sources were provided:

^ "Robby Gordon raining on Danica's parade". Associated Press. May 28, 2005. http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?series=wc&id=2070899. Retrieved on 2007-03-10. Robby Gordon currently races in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, which since 1997 has weighed cars (3,400 pounds (1,500 kg) without driver, 3,600 pounds (1,600 kg) with driver), but drivers under 150 pounds (68 kg) have an advantage since the maximum amount of weight that can be added to cars for lighter drivers is 50 pounds (23 kg).) ^ "Biography for Danica Patrick". IMDb.com. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1701077/bio. ^ "IRL Sets Weight Standards for Drivers". epochtimes.com. 2008-04-03. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-4-3/68499.html. Retrieved on 2008-04-22.  ^ "Justin Wilson". Indycar.com. http://www.indycar.com/drivers/driver.php?driver_id=408. Retrieved on 2008-04-23.  ^ "Dallara chassis program". Indycar.com. http://www.indycar.com/tech/chassis.php. Retrieved on 2008-04-23.  ^ "As Patrick's Star Rises, I.R.L. Is Along for Ride". The New York Times. May 31, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/sports/othersports/31indy.html?scp=1&sq=%22danica+patrick%22+%22minimal+effect%22&st=nyt. Retrieved on 2008-02-16.

 * If you tell me that AP, indycar.com and NY Times, etc. are not reliable sources, well, then I really don't know whether any arguments would hold sway. And my above post was really in good faith and my failure to include "please" after my sentences should not be construde as trying to offend. The section in its entirety should be put back, with at least the weight issue discussed (which was the main point brought up by the Ask123).--RossF18 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying that the issue is her weight being unsourced- I'm saying the WP:SYNTH about weight distribution is unsourced. I didn't see that in any of those articles (though I haven't read the NYT article yet, as it's more work to get to their archives). Is the allowance for weight distribution talked about somewhere that I'm missing? That's why I said "I remember hearing". tedder (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * See, , . Added weight's impact on weight distribution is not synthesis from the article per SYNTH policy. Just like saying that someone in baseball threw a strike, it's obvious that the object thrown for a strike was a ball without the article needing to explicitly say that the pitcher actually threw a ball and not a hat for a strike. Similarly, weight distribution is impacted by added weight and just because the article doesn't actually has a phrase "weight distribution" but deals with balance and measurements that are changed due to weight, the impact talked about is in fact weight distribution. [ P.S. There are no horses on this site. Comments like "whoa, there" and "take it easy" are not appreciated (besides, I have nothing to take it easy about). Always assume good faith. --RossF18 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll let my opinion stand. As far as "take it easy" is concerned, that was in response to borderline comments like "Please do not try to remember. Actually read things." But in any case, I've posted my take, it'd be nice to get further comments on it. tedder (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth I am against sections like this. I think "controversy" is a value judgement in and of itself - i.e. simply calling something a controversy is to make a value judgement. As such I feel that has no place in a would be encyclopædia - such an entity should be objective not subjective.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy addition
Why does the controversy section leave out the main problem many have with Patrick? While the "woman" angle is more appealing, her ability vs hype is an even bigger controversy. There are scores of fans who do not think Patrick deserves all the glorified hype and attention she gets in comparision to her less than glorified racing results. Case in point, Versus will do a one hour feature on her five years at Indy (instead of many other worthy drivers there), however she has only won one minor race in those five years. I am not trying to start any fights, I just think this is something that should be looked into. If people were fair and objective, they would see plenty of evidence to support this as well as reasons to include it. NeuGye (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, NeuGye, please check earlier edits on the main page and read some of the discussion on the talk page. I will say that what you're suggesting would in fact be discriminary since a driving ability debate is often just a fan/non-fan battle lacking any sources one way or the other - which isn't fair or objective. Also, the fact remains is that she is the only female driver who won a race and she consistently places in top ten and her points standings have improved every single year she's been driving. I'm not sure many male drivers with a large fan support can say that. Whenever you talk about unfairness of a spotlight and "many other worthy drivers there," you're by definition making a value judgment that is not impartial. Now, as far as presenting the controversy surrounding Patrick's driving ability being questioned (or Patrick being discriminated against, speaking more bluntly) by fellow drivers while being praised by other drivers - that's something that in my opinion warrants some inclusion - especially when you have someone like Petty or Stewart or other big names speaking out in support or against. Any such commentary speaks more of the people making these comments than of Patrick's actual ability since, in my opinion, only top 10 finishes and consistency actually demonstrate driving provess. Finally, please be careful NeyGye regarding some "tongue in cheek comments" such as "I am not trying to start any fights . . ." and then going on to actually make statments that do just that. You cannot expect your comments to be in a vacuum and the mere fact that you decided to post proves that. So, if you have a point of view, which you do, please make it and there is no need to downplay your comments. --RossF18 (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Ross, I am not trying to start fights, and my opinion on the matter does not matter. Anyone who keeps thier opinions away will be able to contriubte something useful. Her fan following has no bearing on me or my argument in either direction. This is not a value thing. Her driving ability, as well as all the other drivers, are factual. Wins and placement over time is a cold statistic. The number of featured items on Patrick is a statistic as well. Compare her top ten finishes to her competitors. Then compare her media attention to other competetors. Back to my case in point, it was not a vaue judgement. There are five previous winners in this field, several multi lap leaders (beyond once leading 11 laps), many drivers who came close, and the like. But Patrick gets a one hour feature above all of them? Do this for me to settle the debate that has been apparently occuring--- Take all the drivers' measurable racing information and take away the names and images and personal aspects. Then rank the top drivers' media and public appeal with all measurements available. They will not match up at all with Patrick included. The bloated attention, not due to her racing ability, is something worth mentioning in her article. Only personal feelings, void of logic, will negate this well, and only personal feelings will derail this discussion. NeuGye (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Would these "scores" think her over-hyped were she not a she? What proof that she is over-hyped, in an objective manner by the way?--Amedeo Félix (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I personally think Danica fans rooting for her just because she is a woman is sexist and an insult to women. Its gender bias even if its for the good. Regardless, her gender is not a factor for reasoned discussion on this. I am merely looking to her results vs attention with whatever measures we can find. We can discover, objectivly, that she recieves a huge boost from factors not related to being in a racecar. NeuGye (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

F1 in Controversy Section
Does the comment regarding Danica being linked to possible F1 testing with the US team really belong in the controversy section? It does not seem to be a matter of controversy, just a possible turn in her career. There is a section specifically dedicated to her possible move to F1. It seems to me that since the same information is available in that section, that having it mentioned in "Controversy" is unnecessary given that no explanation on why it is a controversy is included. Would people object to this edit? Either that, or does someone have a source that they can cite and then explain in her article as to why this is indeed a cause for controversy? (Dml4dsp (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I second your proposal to edit as you state.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the reference to F1 in the controversy section as discussed here. If, however, someone CAN find an article which concretely addresses why this matter is controversial and can explain and cite it in the controversy section, I would be open to this addition. Dml4dsp (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section integration
It's been said that per WP:CRITS, criticism sections should be integrated into the article. Given how small the section is, that shouldn't be a problem. Just putting it out there for discussion.--RossF18 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Some John Wayne decided to hack it out so I undid the change. I agree with RossF18 it's perfectly acceptable to have a Criticism section as per WP:CRITS.  Grow-up, she's a professional whether she's a girl or not so people can criticize her.  It would be irresponsible to pretend that no one is critical of her.  As it stands now it's incredibly toned down. Hutcher (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Im removing criticism based on her sex as a violation of BLP. Ones sex is not a legitimate point of criticism. That is just silly. If you want to criticize her racing record.. that would be legitimate. criticizing her based on her sex is nothing more then a slam job and contributes nothing to the article. In fact, it is more applicable to nascar's view of women drivers in general and not her personally. It is not only sexist but stupid in claiming because she is a woman she somehow cannot drive a car. Thats like saying because you (or any male) are a man.. you have no capacity for rational thought..and should be home swigging beers in in front of your trailer..or hauling lumber..and scratching your balls...criticism is meant for actual criticism of an event or point of view not a retarded diatribe on why women should not be in nascar. BLP does not allow you to blast people with your opinion based on the fact someone was born female. Just because something is commented on.. does not make it encyclopedia material...btw.. RossF18 said it should be integrated into the article.. meaning not have its own section but be mixed into the article.. how you get criticism section is cool from his post is beyond me..talk about seeing what you want to see...lol -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * 1st. Tracer9999 is right Hutcher, I've didn't advocate a separate criticism section - quite the opposite. 2nd. Tracer9999 - although I can't know for sure, you seem to be a recent parcticipant in these discussions and I suggest that you also read prior discussions regarding the criticism of Patrick. The present criticism section was shortened to the point of containing only a blind commentary on her driving skills as a woman, period. However, the criticism section I was referring to was much longer with the main focus being her temper on track and after-collision altercations with other drivers. There was also a discussion regarding her promotion of the sport in the Sports Illustrated issue (clad in swimwear). Thus, the commentary on her driving skills focused on her temper and not on her being a woman and also on her unique way of promoting the sport. Other editors apparently thought that any mention of her temper and altercation on and off the trak had to be removed (as per previous discussions), leaving only the silly comments by sexist drivers regarding the inability of women drivers in general. My suggestion of integrating the ealier version of the criticism section stands. --RossF18 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The criticism (as it was last) seemed to me less about Danica than about women in racing (NASCAR in particular). To suggest a perspective, tho: is this a product of her inexperience? Younger drivers have a tendency to be more aggressive, & Danica's still comparatively young. Has anybody said anything on the subject? If there are specific issues about her, they need to be included; a page that didn't mention Schumie's willingness ("habit" may be too strong) to drive into people, or Senna's passionate style, IMO, would be incomplete. So, too, Danica's. Not having read them all, let me ask, is there anything like a standard treatment for this in racer bios?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They appear in some, not in others. None of the four FA-level driver articles (Rudolf Caracciola, Damon Hill, Alain Prost and Tom Pryce) has a 'criticism' section. Of the GA level articles, only (surprise, surprise) Michael Schumacher has one. Some of the articles have more or less thinly disguised equivalents ('Rivalry with Senna' etc). My personal opinion is that you are always better off integrating the criticism into the main text on the driver's career. 4u1e (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it should be integrated, not separate. I was thinking more, "is there any included at all?" & "is that a standard treatment?"  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, in extreme cases only I would say. It's not normal to have detailed criticism of driving ability. Bigger stuff like Schumacher's two championship deciding collisions or the Senna-Prost spats would be expected, I think. Comment on Patrick seems to be limited to 'Eww, she's a girl' or noting that she's quite argumentative out of the car. The first is more notable, and it is possible to make sensible comment about it; the second is 100% situation normal for a racing driver. 4u1e (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

<--That being true, I'd suggest either 1) note it, with (cited, naturally) ref to younger drivers being a bit fiesty or 2) take it out entire. My personal preference is 1), because inexperience is a fact of her driving career (of every driver, actually). I wouldn't leave it out of Senna's page, & if Danica's the same way in the car, it shouldn't get left out of hers because she's a woman, presuming we can get a source saying something beyond "eew, a girl".  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if we have references to specific incidents that caused a big fuss at the time (not the usual 'he said, she said' racing incident) then by all means put them in the appropriate point in the article. 4u1e (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused--the 'critics' based on the references appears only one person--Robbie Gordon, and that was 5 years ago. Can we just take this out? One paragraph with two sentences where only one suggests criticism is not meaningful. Buzzbo (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

F1 Virgin Racing offered Danica Patrick a full-time seat for 2010
According to the Daily Star among several other sources, Sir Richard Branson and Virgin Racing offered Danica Patrick a full-time F1 seat for 2010 but she declined instead opting for a return to IndyCar in conjunction with a limited NASCAR Nationwide schedule.

"America’s knockout queen of speed Danica Patrick, an IndyCar winner and regular front-runner, topped his [Branson's] targets – but she opted to stay in the USA." - Daily Star, December 20th, 2009

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/113451/Richard-Branson-s-curvy-plan-for-F1

There is no mention of this in the F1 section of the Danica Patrick wikipedia article, but there should be.

--Thebatsignal (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebatsignal (talk • contribs)

 * I'm not sure I agree. Presumably, Danica Patrick received offers from all sorts of places and turned them down. There is nothing special about this one. Bear in mind that Richard Branson, being somewhat adept at attracting media attention, is probably name-dropping Patrick in an attempt to drum up more publicity for his F1 team. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, the only team I've heard was a possibility was USF1.--raganbaby_6 22:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raganbaby 6 (talk • contribs)

 * That's not what I meant. She would've been offered a seat in all sorts of teams in a number of different racing disciplines. Singling out this one is not necessary, and I don't think Richard Branson needs free Wikipedia publicity, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The above quotes are yet another example of the selective enforcement by users on Wikipedia's Danica Patrick page. I provided a verifiable professional media source with direct quotes stating that Virgin F1 offered Patrick a seat and thus it should be included within the Danica Patrick Wikipedia article within the F1 section... but the response I get is "the only team I've heard was a possibility was USF1" from someone who offers no professional media sources stating otherwise. In addition I am provided subjective assessment by another user who seems more concerned with interpreting the team's underlying motivation.

Are we including verifiable encyclopedic information or just selective content approved by users when it is congruent with their agenda, motivation or perspective?

--Thebatsignal (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebatsignal (talk • contribs)

 * Please assume good faith, and address your comments to the content and format of the article, rather than editors who contribute to it. The information you seek to add is of trivial significance, and thus would constitute undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 * That is a load of nonsense. That article was significant enough to be included as a source (4 months ago admittedly when it was relevant). It wasn't at all trivial, but to suggest it was at all was nonsensical Uksam88 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Recisions 2010-03-14
I have to apologize to the editor who is building a table on this subject. When I saw it initially onscreen with bot flagging as TAGged for repetitive characters and the BOT correction just prior, it appeared that editor was making a test edit. After looking at what the editor is doing on the article, I reverted myself. The table should be allowed to be built. Cheers! --Morenooso (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * On the topic of the chart. Does anyone know why there are three races in the first season for which the names are in bold (KAN, KTY, CHI)? Is this an inconsistency that should be corrected? Or is there a reason? If so, perhaps a note about the significance should be made? Dml4dsp (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pole position for the race. (There's a collapsible key just above the table. :)) 4u1e (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cannot believe I missed that that was listed on the key. Wow. Thanks! Dml4dsp (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Indy 500
Danica finished 6th, not 5th. http://www.indycar.com/schedule/raceresults/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.169.86 (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Andretti Autosport vs Andretti Green Racing
I have noticed that at some point someone replaced the majority of places where it said "Andretti Green Racing" in the text of this page (race seasons 2007-2009)with "Andretti Autosport." As "Andretti Autosport" was not the official name of the team at that time, I think that, in the interests of accuracy, all references to her team for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 seasons should be reverted back to "Andretti Green Racing" and "Andretti Autosport" only used for this season (and beyond). I would like to know what others this of this proposal? Dml4dsp (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Use the name in use at the time. 4u1e (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changes made. Think I got them all. Thanks for your input! Dml4dsp (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Formatting
In the infobox at the top of the page, is there any way to remove "2010 from where it says "2010 IRL Indycar Series"? I beleive that having the "2010" there is confusing many users who think that the box below that is supposed to be stats from the current season, instead of overall stats. More than once now people have changed numbers within the box to match the current season instead of overall numbers. I can't figure out how to do so. If someone else can, that would be great. 24.22.105.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

"Most Popular Driver" credit is incorrect. It should read 2005-2010.
The IndyCar credit "Most Popular Driver" is incorrect and should read 2005-2010. Per the Wikipedia IndyCar page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndyCar_Series via the section "Seasons", and IndyCar official website at http://www.indycar.com/news/archive/show/55-izod-indycar-series/33847-night-for-the-fans/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebatsignal (talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not first at Daytona?
Since Lyn St. James won 2 races at Daytona International Speedway in the 24 Hours of Daytona (1987 & 1990) how can Danica be listed as the first woman to lead a lap at Daytona ?. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_St._James. Also the Nationwide series is not the top-circuit in NASCAR, the Sprint Cup is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Cup_Series MBarje (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on Daytona, but it looks like St James' wins were GTO class wins, not overall victories, so there's no particular reason to think that she would have actually led a lap. 4u1e (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

SHR vs TBR
Is there a reliable source clearing up who supplies what on the Cup side? The last I think I recall reading was that the actual cars were Tony's when Danica is in the 10. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The owner is Tommy Baldwin, but her cars are fielded by Stewart-Haas. -  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 13:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bush, you yourself replied when I brought this up on the WikiProject where I had the source on the NASCAR drivers list where they state that the #10 car is fielded by TBR for both Danica and Reuti.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but I'm not sure if the extent of SHR's "technical assistiance" extends to actually supplying the cars or not. ;) I still believe both teams' names should be used unless is, say, stretches a table absurdly... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Recommend new photo
The infobox photo shows her wearing very dark sunglasses. This makes it a bad picture for the infobox especially since those sunglasses are not a trademark look for her, unlike Roy Orbison. Auchansa (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I've swapped it for one further down the page w/out glasses. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- The lede now looks great, without glasses. -- AstroU (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Divorce material
I copy edited this section. --Malerooster (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
"Robby Gordon has claimed that Patrick's comparatively low body weight constitutes unfair competition due to the inverse proportionality of the combined mass of a car and its driver, and its maximum velocity."

This is an incredibly pretentious way of writing "Lighter cars go faster". I suggest editing to "...due to the advantage given in maximum speed".

"However, the body weight of male drivers have the higher muscle mass, which is a key component in distance and endurance"

This is just bad English - delete "the" please.

Cannot do myself as article has been locked to editing. --31.51.157.227 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this even deserve a section title or inclusion? Maybe add to Gordon's article if noteworthy. --Malerooster (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Stupidity
Is User:The Bushranger at any point going to attempt to justify presenting "model and advertising spokeswoman" as if they are equal in importance to her being a racing driver, or is he just going to continue adding this text without justification? 200.30.223.19 (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not contributors, and instead explain why a person who is well-known for being those things (your average athlete does not appear in a Maxim lingerie spread) should not have those mentioned in the lede. If a convincing argument can be made that they should not be there, then I have no problem with that, but when established text is removed and then reverted, this must be discussed, not unilaterally done. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Appearing in a magazine does not make one a model. There is no other mention of this supposed parallel career of hers except for the one single word you want to add to the lead.  If you want to mention it, mention it in the article, and do not try to suggest that a magazine appearance is equal in importance to a career as a racing driver.  The fact that text is "established" does not make it good, and there is no obligation to discuss the removal of flawed material. 200.30.223.19 (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Bushranger. "racing driver" is clearly first and foremost, but "model and advertizing spokeswoman" belongs in the first sentence. The three combine to form the basis of her notability. If she wasn't a racing driver, she still would be notable enough to have an article based on the modeling and spokeswoman portion of career. The rest of the lead section is about her racing career - so it is well balanced.  Royal broil  03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going to edit all articles about everyone who has appeared in adverts to add "advertising spokesperson" to their description? And why is "model" so important that it must be mentioned in the lead, and yet not important enough to be mentioned in the body of the text?  And if she wasn't a racing driver, she would not have done any of these things, so the basis of her notability is being a racing driver only.  200.30.223.19 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But most of the other sportspeople aren't notable enough to have an article based on their advertising spokespersons and modeling career. The whole "Media Work" section is about her modeling and spokesperson career. 2 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition + FHM = model and GoDaddy commercials during MANY Super Bowls = spokesperson. You can add spokesperson to Michael Waltrip's for his Napa ads and few other drivers who are VERY well known for the ads. Spokesperson is important because many American's who don't follow racing know her just from the GoDaddy Super Bowl commercials. The lead section is about the big picture, not only the racing segment of society.  Royal broil  03:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The word "model" appears once in the article, in the lead only. The word "advertising" appears once in the article, in the lead only.  There is one small section about commercials.  God only knows why you think these things are so important that they must be mentioned in the lead but barely important enough to be mentioned anywhere else.  You have yet to give any sensible explanation of that.  I don't think you understand what the lead section is for.  It's not the "big picture", it's a concise summary of the most important aspects of the subject of the article.  "American's" would not know her for anything if she wasn't a racing driver, and bearing in mind that this is an English language encyclopaedia, not a US encyclopaedia, what Americans think is not a good criterion for deciding what goes in article lead sections and what doesn't.
 * Fundamentally, the article exists because she is a racing driver. That this has led to her appearing in adverts and magazines may be worth mentioning, but putting these things in the lead as if they are of similar importance to her racing career makes no sense.  Insisting on mentioning these things in the lead when they are hardly even mentioned in the rest of the article is just stupid.  200.30.223.19 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Mention of "CrossFit" stinks of advertisement
The "personal life" section included the solo line "....does CrossFit to help stay in shape." In the context of a bio of a living person this is basically spam - no better than mentioning any other product she prefers. Unless it in some way can be linked to her success (and that would be dubious) it ought to be removed, and I am doing so. I have added this "talk" section as justification and a place to have further discussion, if needed.Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I just removed the same CrossFit line from 5 more articles but have not added this section to the corresponding Talk pages. I will look for feedback here on how to handle this sort of thing in the larger context of things.Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- You don't need to look; it is no longer in the article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox - best finish
The Indycar part of the infobox says her best finish was 5th, yet it also says she won a race. That's confusing or wrong. Either way, can it be fixed? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Looking at Juan Pablo Montoya's infobox, the Formula 1 section is much easier to understand (in the light of this discussion) than the American racing series - it's unambiguous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll just clarify that part of the infobox is for saying what her best finish in the IndyCar Championship standings was. MWright96 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhhh! Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Any source documenting Scottish ancestry for Danica?
The Patrick surname is Scottish in origin, and was brought to Ireland via Scotland in the 17th Century (plantation period).Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Podcasts Dina Patrick hear
Watch podcasts 2601:184:407F:CBB0:2C7C:7A7:2E59:1C60 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Top 10's for women
Your own stats show that her best finish in the CUP series was 24th twice. Therefore she has 0 top 10's like all other women in Nascar. 74.123.17.218 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Danica Patrick


text:
User talk:Wikman~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 17:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Wikman. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Wikman~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Wikman~enwiki


text:
Talk:Draught beer

Requested move

 * Rationale: "Draught" used since earliest edits, predominantly used in current version of article. –Hajor 17:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Support —Michael Z. 2005-05-29 19:25 Z
 * Support—Halibutt 21:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 23:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement?
Some parts of this article, especially the names of pubs and links to equipment suppliers reads like an ad. I suggest it should be fixed or a flag should be put up. --Jordo ex (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Could you please provide a little more info on the history of the article, as well as information on the uses of both phrases. Trying to read between the lines of the article history, this looks like a very old Wikipedia article that was converted from usemod to WikiMedia on 3 Feb 2002 (at that time, the article was very much a substub). It looks like it was moved from Draft beer to Draught beer on 7 Mar 2004. When did it get re-moved back to Draft Beer? Blank Verse  ∅ 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"80 times less soluble" is impossible. You should find another way to say what you mean. It is possible for co2 to be 80 times more soluble than nitrogen or for nitrogen to be a some percentage less soluble than co2

Also what is the benefit of nitrogen being less soluble than co2?

What about beers that are hand pumped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.78.108 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Draught beer /= Keg beer
The expression 'draught beer' is by no means exclusive to keg-dispense beer.

According to Michael Jackson :

 * Draught beer is, by definition, drawn from a cask or keg.

According to the OED entry for "draught" :

 *  c. Of liquor: On draught; drawn or ready to draw from the cask: as draught ale, beer, etc.

 * 1835 DICKENS Sk. Boz (1837) 2nd Ser. 39 A pot of the real draught stout. 1893 Daily News 27 Feb. 4/7 Whisky will keep, and draft ale will not. 1971 Daily Tel. 13 May 13/6 Draught beer..is brewed from hops, malt and yeast and is served either by tap or by hand (suction) pump directly from the barrel.

According to the rec.food.drink.beer FAQ :

 * ''Subject: 1-11. What is "draught" (draft) beer?

 * Technically speaking, draught beer is beer served from the cask in which it has been conditioned. It has been applied, loosely, to any beer served from a large container. More recently, it has been used as a promotional term for canned or bottled beer to try to convince us that the beer inside tastes like it came from a cask. See also "Real Ale".''

Again, the colloquial meaning of draught beer may well imply to many "keg beer", but I think it would be more accurate if we moved the keg-specific parts of the draught beer article to keg beer (or something else less ambiguous). Certainly the colloquial meanings of the words should be covered in the article, but for the title paragraph we should stick to the definition of the words as I quoted Mr. Jackson above.

--Dforest 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a history of draught beer to indicate usage of the term over the years. I hope this makes it clearer why the term draught is generally not taken to include cask - though, as with most terms, there is some archaic or deviant usage of draught which does include cask. I hope the archaic usage is explained in the article by the history of the term. SilkTork 12:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The history is a welcome addition. Please read the article from which I took the Jackson quote. In it he clearly uses 'draught' to refer to all beer served on tap, and later discusses cask ale as a type of draught beer. He goes on to say: "Another advantage of draught is that, if it is cask-conditioned, it is not pasteurised. Nor is all keg draught treated in this way." Interesting how the latest OED citation of the word is 1971, the same year CAMRA was started. I still believe it can be used as Mr. Jackson used it in that article (published online in 1998). Considering his influence as a beer expert, it suggests to me that the more inclusive meaning is still current. I don't consider his usage archaic. I've seen beer menus that confirm this, listing 'draught beers', and the cask-conditioned ales are part of that list and labeled so. Certainly keg beers are more common than cask ales today, but that doesn't make the word exclusive to the former. 'Draught beer' still means 'beer drawn from a cask or keg'. If you want to talk about keg beer, you call it 'keg beer', or 'keg dispensed'.

According to the Leeds CAMRA glossary :
 * Draught Beer A generic term for any beer that is stored in a large container and then transferred to smaller containers when served. It therefore covers both real ale (qv) and keg beer (qv).

What do other people think about this? --Dforest 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I happened to read the article with a full version of the OED and an Anglo-Saxon dictionary to hand. The OED certainly does not link draught with german tragen. It most likelys come from OE dragan (to drag 'draw'). I could not see anyway to sensibly retain the link with german "carry" without misleading the reader - so I removed it.

88.109.61.156 30 June 2006

Well, SilkTork has reinstated it (including the misspelling of 'dragan'), but without justifying his/her action. This is clearly folk etymology. In reality, 'tragen' comes from 'dragan' – not the other way round. Of the 36 main noun and adjective senses listed in the New SOED, only two (e.g. "The depth of water needed to float a ship. E17.") have any connection with carrying rather than drawing. 'Draught' (from the same root as 'draw', 'drag' and ultimately even 'extract') is clearly about pulling. In the case of beer, this means suction – i.e. lowering the pressure at the outlet rather than raising it at the source. SilkTork seems to have joined the separate dots of 'pulling' the pint and drinking it down (as in these New SOED definitions), and lumped in the serving and carrying for good measure.
 * A n.
 * 3 A single act of drinking or of inhaling tobacco smoke etc.; (long obs. exc. Sc.) breathing; an amount drunk or inhaled at one go. ME.
 * 11 The action of drawing liquor from a cask etc.; the condition of being (ready to be) so drawn. LME
 * 11 on draught (of beer etc.) ready to be drawn from a cask, not bottled or canned etc.
 * B attrib. or as adj.
 * 2 Of beer etc.: on draught (see sense 11 above). M19.

As it stands, the 'History of draught' section is mostly palpable nonsense – 'en pression', for instance, is literally the opposite of 'draught'. For now, I'll just stick some citation requests in. I'll try to sort it out later, if no one else beats me to it.

If 'draught' really did relate to the serving and carrying of drinks, it would be pretty useless as a means of denoting a particular class of beer. Grant 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese use the term "draft beer" (生ビール nama biiru) to mean beer that has not been pasturized. One of the most popular Japanese beers (even in the US) is Asahi Super Dry. As can be seen on the Asahi Super Dry label (both bottles and cans) it is described in English as "Asahi Draft Beer". See http://asoboo.com/images/full/33391.jpg near the top of the can. I believe this lack of pasturization means that the yeast is still alive. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Be nice if someone could upload a picture of a beer tap. SilkTork 12:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The current picture is satisfactory, but I feel it might be better if it were to show both keg and cask type taps. M0ffx (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
Why exactly do some older conservative beer drinkers have a problem with Draught beer. I looked at the link and it really didn't have anything about it. How exactly, does draught beer change the taste? If someone could add a criticism section to the article it would be great.

Germanic?
"draught" ist more likely to derive from Germanic than German roots, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.245.137 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But "tragen" is a German word. --88.73.110.134 (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys heard of this site? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/draught

unpasteurized?
The information about unpasteurised beer in incorrect. The article states "Draught beer is usually unpasteurised in America.[citation needed] It is intended to be kept refrigerated between 2°C (35°F) and 4°C (40°F), and consumed quickly after being "tapped". Above 6°C (44°F), a beer may within two days turn sour and cloudy. Below 6°C (44°F), a keg of draft beer should last 20-30 days before it loses its fresh taste and aroma."

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could we get a pronunciation guide in here? Most of the people I know pronounce "draught" like it's spelled... 75.111.31.26 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture caption
It says that they are keg (implying filtered/pasteurised/artificially carbonated) but I'm pretty sure they are just air pressure taps so are 'real ale'/cask.Haldraper (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly is draft beer?
Having read the article and the discussion, I still don't know what draft beer is. It could come out of a cask, keg, can, or bottle, under pressure or not, pasteurized or not. It seems to me it's a meaningless term. Rees11 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True draft beer is unfiltered and unpasteurized. Half  Shadow  23:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's true and there are sources to support it, the article should say that. Right now the second sentence says it's filtered. Rees11 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it "draught" and not "draft" here?
I was under the impression that Wiki defaults to the AmE for article titles when AmE and BrE clash. Garner's Modern American Usage says: "Draft is standard AmE in all meanings of the word ... American writers who use draught'' are likely to seem pretentious or pedantic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.136.48 (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Your impression is wrong! Please read WP:ENGVAR - The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language [...] When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic

 * I don't think there are any strong national ties to this article, and the earliest editors opted for BrE, therefore BrE it must remain. Arbitrary, I know, but it saves a hell of a lot of arguments. -- Fursday 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when was it established that AmE does not use the draught spelling? This is the primary spelling I have encountered in the United States, including nationwide beer ads. Next you will be telling me that "donut" is the official AmE spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.194.2 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with the conclusion re: this article, Draft is definitely the prevalent spelling in the U.S. I'm not sure what nationwide beer ads the above poster is referring to, but I have very seldom encountered the British spelling in the U.S., and the dictionary lists the spelling as "chiefly British."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.217.129 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added draft beer to the lede sentence as well. OjdvQ9fNJWle (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I've reverted that change: "draught" is not the "UK spelling", it's also used in Australia (Carlton Draught), Ireland (Draught Guinness) and elsewhere, including in the US, albeit to a lesser extent. Haldraper (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter where it's spelled. People may think it's pronounced "drought" or "drawt". That's why I added it to prevent confusion. It's pronounced "draft", instead of "drot". OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We need someone to put in an IPA phonology for it. Haldraper (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It took a few seconds to look it up on wiktionary. Couldn't you have added it in instead of requesting for it to be added? OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * tbh, I didn't think to look there, thanks for adding it. We don't need the alternate US spelling in the lead though (it's already in the body). Haldraper (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just realized the pronunciation is different, so I've added draft back in. In the US, the draft in draft beer is pronounced like the draft in drafting. Besides, the word in the body isn't even bolded, so it doesn't matter whether it's included in the body or not. Remember, this article isn't necessarily in British English, nor is the topic British, so there is no reason not to include these. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation isn't different anywhere I know! Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because you're from Scotland. I don't think you'd notice a difference. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are discussing variant spellings of the same word. In which region do they use both and pronounce them differently? Arcturus? Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure in the US, people mainly use the "draft" spelling variation and pronounce it with an "æ" sound. In Britain, I think most people use the "draught" spelling and pronounce it with an "ɑ" sound. Aren't these the differences? OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in my experience. The "draught" spelling (for beer) predominates in the UK, but the pronunciation varies regionally. As you have already pointed out, the phoneme difference doesn't even exist in Scotland. There are clearly differences in pronunciation, but they are not identified with the differences in spelling. My OR can lick your OR, so there! :-) Ian Dalziel (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So people pronounce it "draut", drot", "dræft", "drɑft", etc? I think there are only 2 or 3 pronunciations, but 2 different spellings definitely exist even if there are no sources provided yet. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, dictionary.com says the "draught" spelling is chiefly British, but both are pronounced the same way in American English. Here are the pronunciation examples from dictionary.com. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As Ian says, there's no difference in pronunciation between "draught" and "draft", at least not in Northern England where I live. I suppose people in Southern England would pronounce it with a long "a" but presumably they'd do that with "draft" too. Haldraper (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you are from England, you don't know the AE pronunciation do you? The AE pronunciation is with an "æ", not an "ɑ". Do you know what "ɑ" sounds like? It's the pronunciation for "father", not "craft". Most people (total population of English speakers) don't pronounce "draft" with the "father" a sound, but with the pronunciation for "craft".
 * I just added these pronunciations in to make sure this article doesn't suffer anymore systematic or purposely-added bias. You are making this biased by selectively choosing which pronunciation gets displayed when all pronunciations of main English dialects should be given equal weight. In fact, why doesn't this article describe draft beers and the possible differences from other countries, such as Chinese draft beer, or even Russian draft beer? Why is there only info on the European aspects? OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. We don't need to get too hung up about how it's pronounced, especially in the lead. I think a Spelling section might be useful though. Haldraper (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, the pronunciations are not particularly needed, but there's no reason not to include the other spelling form. Because this article is titled in one form, the other one can be mentioned, but making a whole new section just for that is unnecessary. A short addition to the lead is enough, so please stop reverting. And it's about time we use actual data instead of going nowhere. Google hits show about 2,790,000 results for draft beer, so that variation is not insignificant. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree we should mention how it's spelt in North America as opposed to the UK, Ireland and Australia. A separate Spelling section allows more space to do that. I'm not sure what you mean about "using actual data instead of going nowhere". afaik, no one's proposed that the page be called "Draft beer" which is after all a relatively recent spelling variation. Haldraper (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added an etymology and usage section and clarified the differences. Thanks for being reasonable. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a dubious tag in the bit about pronunciation. There is no standard British English pronunciation of "draught": as I said above, a Northern English person like myself would pronounce it with a short "a" (as an American would pronounce "draft") while a Southern English person would use a long "a" in "draught" ("draaft"). Haldraper (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And as OjdvQ9fNJWl himself said, the long "a" does not exist in Scots English, so it has to be the short "a" in Scotland (which was still part of the UK last time I checked). Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, there are regional "dialect" differences, so I've put usually to imply RP pronunciation. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I only checked on Wiktionary, and the two pronunciations there are the two currently in the article. I'm not very sure how to represent the regional variations, so I'm leaving them out for now. If you know the exact ones, feel free to add them in or clarify. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about "regional dialect" - using different words for things - it's about pronunciation. And RP is not the usual pronunciation of the majority of British, Irish and Australian English speakers. I think "Commonweath countries" is misleading too: Ireland is nearly all English-speaking but not in the Commonwealth, the opposite of India, by far the most populous Commonwealth country.Haldraper (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually regional dialect "is applied most often to regional speech patterns," which includes both vocabulary, definitions, and pronunciation, but that's not the point here anyways. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the way you presented it should work, so this section's issues have been addressed. OjdvQ9fNJWle (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed lead. "Draft beer" is simply the American English form of the word and removing clarity on that point because Haldraper wants to pretend Ireland and Australia don't use British spellings is y in the extreme. This is the standard way of dealing with UK/US spelling differences as with sport. Per the discussion above, though, no, we shouldn't bother with the pronunciation here. It's not a confusing word for anyone who can read the page itself but throwing in IPA for all the dialects of English would make it confusing to the readers. It's a disservice and there's always Wiktionary for the curious. — Llywelyn II   22:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wording
I'm going to bring it up again. The adverb "some" (and by extension, "usually") is subjective and cannot be reliably sourced. If you use "some" in front of the word, then that is original research because you cannot determine how many countries use a term (as if countries can use words in the first place), since any English-speaking person may use the term in any country. There is no way we can determine exactly how many use the terms, even if we go by population count. Therefore, the adverb "also" does a better job of being ambiguous about whether or not it's used commonly or uncommonly because it implies that the second word is also used, but we don't know how often. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

measurements
Why are measurements first in arcane imperial. Which nobody uses. Surely litres first, fluid ounces of something else is necessary, as they are the standards the world uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpaul (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Draught beer