Talk:Jim Clark

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.70.228 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Hello, my understanding was that Jim Clark was born in Churnside, a village near Duns in the Scottish Borders, when i was there recently there is signs as you enter the village that say "Churnside - Birplace of Jim Clark OBE", there is also a museum in the near by town of Duns "the Jim Clark Room", prehaps someone could check this (or explain to me, because im confused(!)) where Clark was born

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.155.190 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Clark was born in Kilmany in Fife. His family moved to Edington Mains farm in the borders a few years after he was born. Chirnside is where he went to school, and where the parish church was; Duns is the nearest large town. The marker stones on the entrance to Chirnside say 'Home of Jim Clark OBE' - there's a picture here: http://www.chirnside.org.uk/people.html Halmyre 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos

When I first read this page it was stated that Jimmy Clark had won only once at Watkins Glen. I believe he won also in 1966 and 1967. Graham Hill won in 1963, 1964, and 1965. I changed the statement from once to the three times.

I began photographing the Grand Prix at Watkins in 1962 while I was a student at RIT in Rochester and have numerous shots of most of the drivers at the time as well as Colin Chapman. I put a short photo book together about Jimmy and gave a copy to Stirling Moss and his wife in Monterey, CA in 1993. Stirling said Jimmy was his idol and he began to cry.

At another event in Laguna Seca, Monterey, CA, the Lotus was the marque sometime between 1993 and 1996. Many Lotus owners and one new Lotus dealer from Boston purchased the black and white prints I showed around. There's great admiration for Lotus machines.

Youn can email me (Don Eddy) at dfe8301@rit.edu if you'd like.

I would not be against having a photo or two of mine of Jimmy put onto the page if I knew how to do that.

Move proposal

Discussion about this article being moved to Jim Clark is underway at Talk: Jim Clark. --Commander Keane 14:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Legacy sources

Some sources for the three statements in this section followed by (hidden) comments would be much appreciated.
David Kernow 07:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

POV, emotions, facts and multiple reverts

Statements like "He ran rings round all the big-class 2 liter and 4 liter cars from Ferrari and Porsche with over 300 b.h.p." are POV, unencyclopedic and factual wrong. Also, the repeated deletion of the reference to the memorial stone at the Hockenheimring is not acceptable. --Matthead 12:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was suspension failure DUE to the tires being too thin in width that took him out while leading the 1964 Indianapolis 500. Saying "tyre failure" might make it sound like it was a cut, instead of what actually happened. --Chr.K. 05:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral point of view

I feel it is essential that some consensus is achieved on the content of this article as the continuing wholesale multiple edits and reversions are achieving absolutely nothing. M100 11:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this, and also with Matthead's comments elsewhere. Halmyre 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The latest anonymous edits appear to by Pfanzgarten or a sock. Please discuss the prospective changes in here in an adult manner or cease, otherwise your continuing editing of an article might be considered vandalism. M100 11:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

1966 Indianapolis

Did Clark compete at Indy in 1966 in the Lotus 33? I didn't know, so I put the note about the race at the end of the paragraph, but if he did, I would put it earlier in the paragraph to make it all sequential. --Brian G 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Team Lotus - The Indianapolis Years by Andrew Ferguson (page 234) 30th May 1966 has has Clark in a Type 38 with a Ford engine. Car number 19 (Chassis 38/4) Qualifying 2nd Finishing 2nd -- M100 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! In that case, I'll leave it at the end. --Brian G 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?

It seems that one user is repeatedly reverting this page from multiple IP addersses. Is it reasonable for us to consider listing this page at WP:RPP? I've never done it before, but am willing to give it a shot if people think it will be accepted. --Brian G 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me - might force him to discuss the changes. -- Ian Dalziel 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI - I posted the request and the decision was that the vandalism is not bad enough at this time for a semi-protect. Suggestion was to continue to monitor via watchlist and revert as necessary. --Brian G 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see what the substantive differences are between the article as is, and the one he/she keeps trying to impose. I just seems to trivial. Are there any substantive differences? --Mais oui! 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It might seem trivial but the majority of it is the manner in which the changes are being applied. If the changes proposed were taken one by one and discussed in here then quite a few might be incorporated in the article text. Others won't as they do not reflect a neutral point of view. I'm sure quite a few people probably want to improve the article, I've got three books to hand on Clark and as a long time Lotus nut I really want this article to accurately represent him, but while the anonymous socks have their way and won't even attempt to discuss and justify their changes then the article is going nowhere fast. M100 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Same (or worse) story on the German article which was semi-protected a week ago, see de:Jim Clark. I had given up weeks ago, yet was attacked by 89.50.227.134 in the talk. -- Matthead ^discuß!   O    23:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Improving this article - the way forward?

Maybe the only way this article is going to be less prone to the repeated disruptive edits is to improve it to such an extent that the so called Jim Clark fan is left out in the cold with a pointless non neutral article that is also seriously lacking in detail.

In my opinion, as it currently is, it appears to be a bitty, messy article with info scattered over various subheadings. It's not an easy read. M100 00:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete Formula One results

I made a table like the ones found on more recent Formula One drivers' pages (like Michael Schumacher's). However, Jim Clark's site seems to be protected so I can't edit it. I'm new to this, so I don't quite know what to do. Raoulduke98 23:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jim Clark page is now semi-protected due to repeated disruptive editing / vandalisation from some named and also some anonymous users that drastically altered the context and content of the article.

Besides blocking anonymous edits semi-protection also prevents edits from newly registered users. Leave it a few days, maybe editing a few other articles in the meantime and then come back here and you will be able to make your changes. Having looked at the draft version on your sandbox page it looks ok at first glance. M100 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Raoulduke98 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Theres a little cockup on the results. Monaco 1963 is highlighted as a Jimmy clark pole when it wasnt. And South Africa 1962 is not marked as a pole when it should be. Cante edit anon - should only take a second.

Rich

I've updated South Africa 1962 (thanks for picking that up!). But Mike Lang's Grand Prix! shows Jimmy on pole in Monaco 1963, so I didn't change that one. The table now shows 33 pole positions, which matches Clark's "recognised" tally. -- DH85868993 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

Just a note by way of explanation about the removal of the line in the first paragraph by user "Ernham". I reverted it once but he keeps changing it back. He's done it to several other articles as well, and engaged in personal attacks on Talk:Michael Schumacher. No doubt it'll be resolved soon enough, if it hasn't been already. Bretonbanquet 04:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all happy with that Fangio quote - added by an anonymous user (whose only other posts were about Clark) in June. It doesn't ring true to me - I'm taking it out unless someone can find a reference for it. -- Ian Dalziel 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking out the POV, leaving the opening paragraph quite bare. Find something non-POV to add. Tired of these games.

Well leave it all alone then - or better still, tackle the rampant POV in Michael Schumacher - oh, no wait... you put all that in... Bretonbanquet 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop changing Michaels as soon as you guys stop adding this POV crap to drivers that aren't fit to change his tires. Ernham 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm... Was that supposed to be NPOV, then? (it's tyres,by the way) -- Ian Dalziel 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Date format

I noticed that the date format for the birth/death was modified. Does this make sense to match with the "tyres"? If not let’s change it back, but if so, then the other date in the article (fatal crash section) should be changed as well for consistency. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only visible in that format when editing, the display format is governed by the users preferences [[1]] and then navigate to the "date and time" tab. In effect, if the user preferences are set then the display outputs in the format the user understands - I understand ISO 8601 dates yyyymmdd and UK dates ddmmyyyy but US dates mmddyyyy cause ENDLESS confusion. I despise them intensely, just like tires! M100 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks better as '4th March 1936' rather than '4 March 1936' - but would this violate Wiki guidelines? -- Halmyre 10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Incorrect date formats, ordinal suffixes should not be used in dates. Of course, it is a guideline, not a policy, so there may be exceptions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the user preferences control this, but since novice users often don't know how to use the preferences and also unregistered (or not logged in) users can not set preferences, it is recommended Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formats related to topics that it be consistent throughout the article. Also, to be clear, I am perfectly happy with using UK format for this entire article, but as of now there are 2 in UK and 1 in US format. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Monza 1961

I was thinking...shouldn't the '61 Monza GP be mentioned? The crash resulted in the death of Von Trips (and 12? sepectators) and Clark being hounded by the Italain authorities and media for the next few years as they wanted new leads on why the accident happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.117.134 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Full Protection

There's been some edit warring going on over the content of this article for the past several days. I've noticed that the involved parties have been careful to not break 3RR, but this doesn't cut it. Discuss here and request a protected page edit once an agreement has been met. --Zsinj^Talk 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardly edit warring - one user with multiple identities constantly reverting the article to a version he set up in June. There is, as far as I know, no factual dispute - that version is deprecated because of its POV phrasing, messy spelling and grammar and non-standard format, as well as the fact that it is reverting everything that has been done to the article in five months. Repeated requests to discuss changes are simply ignored. -- Ian Dalziel 06:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In the consensus edit there is no factual inaccuracy, the only reason I mentioned factual inaccuracy in the edit summary was the number of Grand Prix's in Pflanzgarten/Pflanzgarten sock edit is not in agreement with any published resource. The dispute, if there is any, comes from one user with PROVEN multiple identities, a history of 3RR evasion, the usage of sole use accounts on this article and the total failure to engage in any discussion on the talk page despite numerous requests in previous edit summaries.

Maybe the wider wiki community have something to be thankful for, but for instance with the exception of one edit on one other article the user Pflanzgarten and his proven and suspected socks haven't edited any other articles. The messy grammar I suspect comes from someone who is quite obviously not a native english speaker.

It is plainly obvious and proven that the disruptive edits are from a Pflanzgaten sock, exactly the same revert has been applied to this article, as mentioned above, for the past five months. This article has changed and evolved gradually by MANY other editors who more recently strive to maintain this article in the face of onslaught from one sadly deranged user with multiple identities, who now seems to have understood 3RR, but quite obviously nothing about any other wiki processes.

Protecting the page in the short term may prevent Pflanzgarten/Pflanzgarten socks imposing their views against the wishes of the majority, but it will also prevent legitimate edits. In the short term this can only be a good thing as Pflanzgarten and his socks may go away for good - wikipedia would be a better place without him/her, whereas a block on the most recent Pflanzgarten sock "Lotus 48" would serve little purpose as history suggests they would would just create another account. I would hope that after a few weeks past the expiry of the current one month block on Pflanzgarten the protection on this page could safely be removed. It's a pity because in the meantime I suspect numerous legitimate editors will be discouraged from improving this article in a positve and productive manner. M100 10:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ian Dalziel and M100. Please remove the disputed tag, as the content is only disputed by Pflanzgarten, proven Pflanzgarten socks, and by User:Lotus 48. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

and what about the fact that he is considered the most natural racing driver of all time? - this remark was sneakily written [2] into Hroðulf's statement above, by User:81.159.15.189 (probably yet another sockpuppet) -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like Ernham than Pflanzgarten to me... -- Ian Dalziel 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hroðulf I think we can safely assume User:Lotus 48 IS a Pflanzgarten sock! M100 12:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim Clark was killed in a Lotus 48, in case anyone missed that. Kind of fitting nickname for someone who makes a wreck of this article. The user in question (a German native speaker, [3] [4], maybe from Iserlohn) uses many IPs and several usernames (see expanded list [5]) which are related to 1960s car types (Volkswagen Type 4 411 LE, Porsche 906, also VW VR6) or classic race track sections like Pflanzgarten on the old Nürburgring, Burnenville on the old Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps and Zandvoort. On the German wikipedia, where he was also busy since, he uses also Coventry Climax and Nr5, i.e. engine and starting number used by Clark. .-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Durova 06:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Is fine, but how can it be applied to someone who refuses to participate in dicussion and has, to date, 54 socks? -- Ian Dalziel 13:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently 63 [6] socks, not counting the ones on German Wikipedia.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

... nor the ones in French Wikipedia ...-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In case no one noticed, I reduced the article to semi-protection last night. I've also added this article to the Watchlist Request section over at WP:RFI. It's nice to know that there's a group of editors here that are doing their best to maintain the article's integrity. Great job everyone. :-) Zsinj^Talk 15:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic method of WP:DE is to establish impartial consensus before taking community action. An article WP:RFC is the easiest way to do that. Go ahead and offer space for this editor to present evidence in the RFC summary Talk:Joan_of_Arc/Archive04#RfC an example of such a presentation where one side declined to participate is here. In the meantime, list any new problem behavior in a regular report request at WP:RFI - the current entry is only a watchlist request and this situation deserves a full entry. And request a checkuser on the active sockpuppets. I'm surprised this has dragged on so long without more intervention. Durova 15:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Indy 500 results

I'd like to add Jim Clark's Indy 500 Career results to the main article.

Year	Car Number	Start	Qual Speed	Speed Rank	Finish	Laps Completed	Laps Led	Race Status	HOF Points
1967	31	16	163.213	23	31	35	0	Piston	0
1966	19	2	164.114	2	2	200	66	Running	12
1965	82	2	160.729	2	1	200	190	Running	15
1964	6	1	158.828	1	24	47	14	Suspension	8
1963	92	5	149.750	7	2	200	28	Running	10

--Mycroft.Holmes 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reason for his 1964 retiral be blamed partly on the tyres? They were breaking up and the vibration caused the suspension failure. When he realised what had happened Chapman retired the other Lotus (Dan Gurney?), much to the displeasure of the Ford top brass. BTW, any particular reason why the table is in reverse order?!? Halmyre 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The listing from my database gives most recent first. I've gotten so used to seeing it that way, that I hadn't noticed it's the opposite direction of most stat listings. I'll change the code and repost the information. Thanks for noticing! --Mycroft.Holmes 16:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll also try to generate wiki table code rather than HTML table code. And while I'm at it, I'll remove the HOF points column. Those are "Hall-Of-Fame" points, a creature of my own invention. --Mycroft.Holmes 16:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the hall of fame points - I wondered if the inclusion of chassis numbers, might be a useful addition to this table. Thoughts? M100 13:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking out the "HOF" stuff. I was just too lazy to do it. There's some more over at Graham Hill. If the spirit takes you, feel free to remove those too! My plan is to create a program to dump information from my Indy 500 database into a more wiki friendly format. I've received more than a couple of comments about the lack of engine/chassis information. Maybe I'll try to scan some my source book and run it through the OCR translator to generate a text file. --Mycroft.Holmes 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as the race status goes: I'll be honest, I don't know the minutiae behind it. The status is that reported by the IMS website and most source books I've come across. --Mycroft.Holmes 16:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd that the suspension gets the blame, but the books I have (Nye, Dymock, Gauld) all mention the tyres as the culprit. It's a bit like the (possibly apocryphal) claim some years ago by one team that a retirement was due to "the alternator failed", when what they really meant was "the alternator failed when the con rod came through the side of the engine block and punched a hole in it". Perhaps Chapman didn't want to get in Dunlop's bad books? Halmyre 15:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. Reasons given for retirement have to be taken with (at least) a grain of salt. I'll peruse my source books today to see if they give any special mention to the incident. --Mycroft.Holmes 15:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chunks of tread coming off the rear tyre, causing heavy vibration that broke the left rear suspension, is given as the cause in "Team Lotus - The Indianapolis Years" -written by Andrew Ferguson who was competitions manager at Lotus at the time, probably as close to a primary source as you are likely to get :) The book has a few pictures of the damage to the car, one taken on the track just after the incident by Jabby Crombac. M100 16:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From Indianapolis 500 Chronicle by Rick Popely

Lap 47: Clark's left rear tire shreds, damaging his suspension. He parks his Lotus in the Turn 1 infield, handing the lead to Parnelli Jones.

Lap 110: Foyt holds a comfortable lead over Ward as Gurney in the second Lotus team car calls it quits. As with Clark, the Dunlop tires on Gurney's car are overheating and shredding.

This book lists Clark's reason out as "rear suspension" and Gurney's as "tire wear". --Mycroft.Holmes 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the chassis type and number - source was the Andrew Ferguson book mentioned in my commnent above M100 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Best 3-year Indy Starting Streak of the 1960's

Here's a link to back-up the assertion:

http://indy500.tjs-labs.com/list-qual-streak.php?streak=3&sort=A&minyear=1960&maxyear=1969

--Mycroft.Holmes 14:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by Pflanzgarten and his dozens of sockpuppets

How annoying, the guy does not give up. Please Admins, lock the article. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So far it's only once or twice per day which really isn't so bad. Wait for it... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably about time this article was locked again. This guy is just not going to go away. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's just about containable as long as we have plenty of legitimate editors watching the article M100 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in legacy section

The legacy secion says that "Clark achieved 33 pole positions and won 25 races from his 72 Grands Prix starts in championship races" However the sidebanner near the top of the page contradicts this as it says 73 starts which is also the figure confirmed from published sources. Any comments or should I just change it? M100 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Forix says 73 presences, 72 starts - he withdrew from the 1966 French GP after hitting a bird in practice. -- Ian Dalziel 12:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Error in the Sidebar

Jim Clark was from Scotland. The sidebar incorrectly lists him as being from Brittain as does the flag icon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bonneville (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

It may have escaped your notice, but Scotland is in Britain (though it not in "Brittain"). The flag icon, which at the time of your comment was the Union Jack, does not list him as being from Britain (nor indeed Brittain), but rather from the United Kingdom. --Mal 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

yes Clark was born in Scotland but his nationality, like most persons born in either England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland, is British. For further motorsport related examples see the entries for Graham Hill, Tom Pryce, Jackie Stewart and John Watson. M100 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In the hope of preventing further changes to nationality in the infobox, please read the discussion here. In the context of the infobox for this article and similar biographical articles on F1 drivers, this isn't a political issue but an established convention. Mighty Antar 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Single?

Does anyone know about Jim Clark's marital status?( whether he was married or had any children?) I think this would be yet another interesting fact of this great race car driver. Besides, I've heard some speculations that he may have been single.

Bag of marbels 28 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• He never married. He had a long-term girlfriend, Sally Stokes, but the relationship ended and she married Dutch driver Ed Swart in 1967. Halmyre 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Portrait

I am thinking we shoud have a portrait photo of Jim Clark, other than the one showing him at the Nürburgring Grand Prix 1966. Mainly so that we could help improve this article.Bag of marbels 28 00:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the current pic is a great photo, but is a little vague unless you already know who Jim is. There is the offer made by the gentleman above Talk:Jim Clark#Photos if someone wants to follow this up, otherwise or until something better is offered, I've fiddled about with the 1966 shot to focus squarely on Jim [[7]] but I'll leave it up to others to decide if this should be substituted. Mighty Antar 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reworked Image available

Hello, i just reworked on Commons the Image Image:ClarkJim1965mitMechaniker.jpg to Image:ClarkJim1965mitMechaniker-2.jpg in the pitstop aside the mechanic. While this is a major edit to the image (a lot of modifications) i choose a new filename for upload to preserve the possibility to compare or to use the original. As this article is locked, i post this request here to replace the image. --212.202.176.3 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)