Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:49, 15 September 2007

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

British Motorsport

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject British MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject British MotorsportBritish Motorsport

] "Versions 04 and now 2005 have brought an extremely arcade rally driving experience to gamers."

Most "gamers" would agree the Colin McRae games are leening more on the simulation side than the arcade side...

-- Colin McRae is the second-most successful World Rally Championship driver of all time after Carlos Sainz

Colin's co-driver in early years

Can someone verify Colin co-driver from years 1993-1996? I know that Alison Hamilton was his co-driver in 1992, Grist since 1997, but I'm not sure about the gap... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maggot666PL (talk • contribs).

McRae was co-driven by Derek Ringer from the 1987 RAC Rally to the 1996 Rallye Catalunya (see RallyBase profile for more information). Prolog 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me quickly. Now it's complete. Maggot666PL 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1999?

Someone is constantly changing the year Colin won the WRC title... Is it one person with dynamic IP? Maggot666PL 14:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter Crash

A German site is reporting that Colin was on board. Page edited to reflect this although death hasn't be edited until an English site confirms. VonBlade 20:09, 15 September 2007

Why does it say "was" before he has been confirmed as dead. Please lets keep Misplaced Pages factual. ResearchUK 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I did keep it factual. I updated the page as further, substantiated, confirmation came in. Plus, linguistically, was is the correct usage. Even if he wasn't, he wouldn't be at that current moment, therefore was (past-tense) is the correct word. I couldn't exactly put "is on board" could I. "Might have been onboard" is just obfuscation. VonBlade 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RFPP time methinks. WATP • _(contribs) 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Already done. --Golbez 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotta say it doesn't look good.

But until it's confirmed...

Golbez, how am i causing a riot? purely airing my thoughts. better not air my thoughts about you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeness (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The point was, vandalism happens, there's no point in making an emotional talk page post about it every time it happens. That will just raise tempers. --Golbez 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems to be confirmed: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article2461339.ece

RIP.

Sources?

Strathclyde police have stated that there will be no identification until tomorrow morning, so any source cited is surely just speculative journalism? Readro 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust the London Times, so I think this is sufficient. --Golbez 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But the Times are contradicting what the police have said. Readro 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i was trying to say the same, but Golbez deleted my comment. bbc news 24 said the same thing, the victims won't be confirmed until tomorrow (sunday).Geeness 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pay attention to the history, I didn't touch your comment. --Golbez 21:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

in the section above?? yeah, it was definitely you. why so high and mighty? i'm tending to believe the strathclyde police here, rather than london times, due to the fact the police are a bit closer to the accident than the paper. Geeness 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, sorry. I thought you meant the second comment you made; I thought it had been removed by someone else. I think the history is being wonky. I'm not trying to get away from my initial deletion, I admit at least to that one. =p --Golbez 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks, lmao! Geeness 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And the Strathclyde police haven't said a single thing contradicting the Times, so I dunno how you can believe one over the other. --Golbez 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i was just saying i'm more inclined to believe the police, cos really, it WILL be them that confirms everything, at the end of the day (and i don't read the times! or any newspaper, for that matter).

The Times article quotes McRae's agent, who confirmed that he was the pilot. Police have said there were no survivors.Richard B 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, are we sure he's dead? If we're not, then we should remove the "death status" from the page. --KaragouniS 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He's been removed from the recent deaths page by an admin who has instructed people not to add him until verification takes place. He should not be listed dead until identification tomorrow. Readro 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Many sources are saying that he has died, but more are saying that it is unknown if he is dead or not. It's kind of hard to know which sources to trust at the moment. I'll admit it doesnt look good, but we dont actually know for sure if he is dead.

like i said, best to believe the Police! Geeness 21:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Afterall, Strathclyde police know more details about the crash than any news source. I think that the page should take all out references to his death, and shouldnt be updated until it is confirmed.

The page shouldn't be updated until he has been confirmed as dead.

The police and BBC are both saying that there won't be a formal ID until tomorrow. Colin McRae's page isn't saying anything. Perhaps the page should be changed to say something along the lines of "A helicopter came down close to his property, it is suspected Colin McRae may have been on-board" or something like that? When the identification is done then any information about his death can be added. Fact not supposition. --81.107.39.205 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Times article referred to now quotes McRae's agent, confirming that he was the pilot. The times article leads "THE former rally driving champion Colin McRae was killed...". That's a usually reliable source stating that he has been killed. Richard B 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be a bit embarrassing for the Sunday Times tomorrow if it's wrong. I presume the story's gone to press as it has tomorrow's dateline. JRawle (Talk) 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because the Times says that he has died doesnt make it true. Nothing is confirmed, so we cant go ahead and say he has died. Once again I would like to ask if all references to his death are removed until it is officially confirmed. Everything being said so far is just speculation.

I could turn that around and say that just because the police say it, doesn't mean it's true. We have a highly reputable source saying something, and no remotely reputable source is challenging it. We also have the reputable source of McRae's own agent saying he was on the helicopter, which police confirm had no survivors. --Golbez 21:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, The Times is not right 100% of the time. Until the police actually release information I suggest that it be left as "suspected to be on board" "thought to be on board" as that is what the vast majority of sources are saying. Once the police release information I have no opposition to that being added. Personally I suspect it is him, but at the moment that's just supposition. (3rd attempt since I got edit conflicts the last 2 times I tried to add this >_< ) --Tethran 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was intended to be neutral. It's just that I hope the Times is embarassed. JRawle (Talk) 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because the police haven't released names doesn't mean they haven't told the Times. Sure, there won't be a formal identification until tomorrow, but they will have told the press, on a non-attributable basis, the details of who is dead Duke of Whitstable 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

THat may be, but as of yet it is still yet to be officially confirmed.

In addition it's is NOT the police who have told The Times. The Times quote "his agent" and there is always the possibility of a mistake. Granted, it seems likely that McRae was onboard, but until there's a statement from the police it should be left as "suspected" or similar. --Tethran 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems likely that this was Colin McRae, but searches reveal mixed results. The Times Online piece confirms two deaths, one of whom they claim is McRae, Channel 4 state it was just one death, and do not name names. It seems the Times may have created the article as a speculative piece so that they have something for the morning papers (note the date is quoted as the 16th, not the 15th, at the top of the page). Until it is confirmed by a second news outlet from a second source (not necessarily the police), I believe McRae is alive as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Seivad 22:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are all giving the police some kind of special power that they just do not have, the police cannot decide if someone is dead or not! You are waiting for official confirmation from the police. What if someone blew their head off in front of you, would you think they are still alive until the police confirm they are dead? If the facts support it then you can call someone dead, there is no law about this, The facts are 100% clear as day in this case, his wife was driven home by police escort and all the neighbors were outside the house greiving as one report has put it.

Not saying we should wait for the police, but we need at least two reliable and non-conflicting sources I think. Seivad 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've already posted about a half dozen sources which state "thought to be dead", "suspected", "agent says", etc. Since they don't conflict with each other go with those. This is not giving the police special powers to pronounce if someone is dead or not but whilst there is still uncertainty within the media the police are going to be the ones that provide certainty and reliable information. --Tethran 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Freeze?

Is it possible to freeze the page from changes overnight? Police say they aren't going to confirm anything until tommorow, and people keep changing between dead and alive because of the timesonline article. Until police confirm he is dead, we should keep his status as alive, otherwise it's just speculation. CDowns 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You want Requests for page protection. Sam Blacketer 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only done a total switch back to 'alive' once; if it continues then that may be grounds for a full protect. I obviously won't be the one to do it, but nor will I fight over it. Also, only the police can speak facts? So if his wife said he was dead, that would be only speculation? What about his agent? Oh wait... he already did. --Golbez 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

<after edit conflict> Except that we have a usually reliable source claiming that he is indeed dead. Why should we pick, say, the BBC (who are not confirming anything) over the Sunday Times (who have spoken to his agent) for sources? Do we prevent sources from the Times in other[REDACTED] articles. No - that's just silly. Richard B 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Urgh. We also have a usually reliable source saying that it will not be confirmed until tomorrow. Wait until then. Until then the Times article is referenced and it says it is suspected he's dead or something similar to that. Until there is official verifiable, factual information it should stay as "suspected" with the link to the Times for people that want to make up their own minds. --Tethran 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just find it surprising that no one else has reported his death. When it's concerning someone's death, I'd rather be on the cautious side. We're not going to get any brownie points for adding his death to the article immediately, so I'd much rather wait for a formal identification. Readro 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be fully protected until the Police or his family announce officially his death. Until then, everything we add about his death will be just pure speculation. --KaragouniS 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats what i've been trying to say, but thus far I have been ignored. I know it looks bad, but nothing is confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.198.161 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6996860.stm , http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/09/15/mcrae.crash/ , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/15/ncopter115.xml , http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482017&in_page_id=1770 , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482017&in_page_id=1770 , http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2170269,00.html

Notice how all of them say things like "feared dead" or "his agent has said..." or "suspected". That is how it needs to be until the police, coroner or similar officially releases information --Tethran 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This news report confirms he is dead - but I would not add it yet, it seems strange only one is saying it. Also, I have heard on TV that the police are saying nobody survived, and Colin's agent confirmed he was on board. 2+2=5 for the time being. — jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the most reliable source you will find on this are jounalists who are franticly puting the story together and speaking to everyone they can to determine who was on the Helicopter. Of course 100% it is him, all the police are doing is following the rules that are in place for incidents such as this. Even if someone decpitated themselves in front of 300 witnesses the police still would not confirm the facts until the family has been informed.

If the times are saying McRae is dead then McRae is dead, RIP. The police are the least reliable source at the moment strange as that seems.

Sorry. But there's a difference between "reliability" and "speed". The police want to make sure that it is him, and whilst it seems very likely that this is the case the fact that they want to absolutely confirm it makes them the most reliable source. I strongly suspect the journalists are correct but I'm sure we can all wait until tommorrow before calling him dead officially. --Tethran 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It does look bad, but we still dont know for sure.

ALso, i noticed that some segments of the article have been changes to a past-tense. Could someone fix this up until everything is confirmed?

Impreza Picture

"won in this Impreza" cant be right because a No. 1 Impreza must be from the 1996 season when he was reigning champion. I believe his 1995 title winning car was No. 4

A couple of other things the article might want to mention

Terrible news if true. A couple of possible omissions from the article which folks might want to look at:

• Colin Macrae R4 performance car. News sources are available on Google for this car designed by Macrae intended to be on sale next year.
• Calling time on his rallying career. at Sky is dated today saying he has called it a day. I don't know if this is a horrible coincidence or if it's an old article that Sky have merely updated today.

--kingboyk 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not suitable for flying?

Listening to the video it says "locals say it was not suitable for flying" or words to that effect. Until I hear something from an expert who can say that I think that the information being added about it is irrelevant and inflammatory as it suggests McRae was at fault when this may well not be the case. Seriously. I have no problem with that being added when a news source says "xxx an expert in the field says that conditions were not suited to this particular type of helicopter" but just locals saying that he shouldn't have been flying? --Tethran 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless locals are aviators then they can merely speculate. Readro 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is the point I'm trying to make so surely that quote should be removed from the page as it's out of context and speculation at this point. --Tethran 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, absolutely. Readro 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Nsudac 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Death"

Alright, it seems some of us beleive he has died, and some of us beleive that although it is likely that he is died, it is yet to be confirmed.

At the risk of making fools of ourselves, we should leave the article as it is, not refering to the fact he is dead yet. Face it, if it turns out he is dead, then those of us who think he may not be will look stupid, and if he isnt dead, those of us who are saying he is dead will look just as stupid. Can we just stop the discussion and leave the article as it is, for the time being?

Also, R.I.P if all this is true.

Leave it with it saying he's "strongly suspected to be dead" or something like that. Then no-one ends up looking like fools because we're right either way. --Tethran 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, god forbid anyone looks stupid. That really is the big picture on this one.

I said that in response to what was already said. Going with the[REDACTED] guidelines I do believe it should be left until there is official confirmation. Elsewhere I've already said my personal feelings on what's happened. But Misplaced Pages is somewhere for neutrality not an outpouring of grief. --Tethran 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky News has just said 4 people have been confirmed dead but no confirmation of who is dead is expected to be announced this evening. — jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's bits and pieces like this that are why it's protected as it is... With information coming in we're now at 1, 2, 3 or 4 people. I've heard all of those from difference sources so they're all conflicting with each other... It should be cleared up tomorrow when the police report on it. --Tethran 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin Steele McRae, MBE (5 August 1968–15 September 2007)

We don't know for sure he is dead yet. Referring to him as deceased is nothing short of sick and whover is responsible ought to be ashamed.

We've already established that, and the page has gone become fully locked.

I wouldn't call it 'sick'. And yes, he is dead. Rest in Peace Colin.Outsid3r 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Full protection

There has been too much reverting, some of it with the edit summaries IN FULL CAPS, on this page. Formal identification of the two people who died in the helicopter crash is not expected until the morning, and the fact that some news sources have 'jumped the gun' does not provide the reliability which Misplaced Pages expects. I have put the page under full protection. All editors are encouraged to discuss changes on the talk page. Unprotection can be requested at this page. Sam Blacketer 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming what some people have been saying for a while about Misplaced Pages's standards for reliability with regards the information available on this. --Tethran 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, sometimes people tend to forget that this place is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site. Colin is one of my favorite rally idols and I really hope he's still alive.--KaragouniS 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Colin McRae. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I would request that consistency be exercised here. The article is protected on the basis that edits constituted speculation, yet the lead speculates that he was killed. I am happy for the article to remain as it is, but would it not be more appropriate to deal in fact; stating that a helicopter registered to McRae crashed, killing all on board, but that the victims have not been formally identified. Coupled with the sources, it would enable the reader to conclude from that what they wish. BeL1EveR 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye. I'd be happy for it to state the facts that have been officially released - about the helicopter being registered to him, all on it being dead and that the victims have not been identified yet. It agrees with, AFAIK, every news report so far. --Tethran 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Formal identification or not, we have one site quoting McRae's agent saying he is dead, and zero sites saying he is alive, with the rest being non-committal. I appreciate that the consensus of WPans and most news sources are that we don't know for sure, but 10 out of 10 cats^H^H^H^H^H sources that expressed a preference are saying he's dead. My "vote" would be to indicate this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness2702 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the agent story has some weight, if it were true that his agent said this, you would assume that would form the basis of a confirmation? In the sense that all media outlets would accept his agent's assertion that "he is dead" as confirmation, and report accordingly? BeL1EveR 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the BBC article just FYI for when confirmation arrives. SGGH 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As of 7:35pm EST, CNN & TSN are reporting that he has been killed. It does appear that the status of his young son is unknown.

Yeah, but these are mere mortal news sources. Haven't you heard that only the police - certainly not the family members - can ever truly say if someone is dead? (yes i'm bitter) --Golbez 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line..I've been a rally fan for 15+ years and I'm sad and discouraged by this news -- but I agree until we know the absolute truth--we should just pray for him and his family and friends.--microbunny 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not the job of the police to determine when someone is dead or not. You know someone is dead when, well, when they die!! The only person who can legally declare someone dead is the coronor. But, we are not looking for a legal confirmation of someones death here. We are only looking for some reliable confirmation that he is dead and to be quite frank we have got that in spades. It is pretty obvious to anyone with any size brain that Colin McRae was killed in the crash.

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject British Motorsport articles
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates