Talk:Automobile Club de l'Ouest

Controversy
The ACO was badly affected by WW2 (no racing events at Le Mans for a decade) and were organisers of Le Mans 1955. Pretending these events did not happen, or were unconnected, does no service to history. --Rupertlt (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the ACO being affected by WWII a controversy? It's a fairly well known fact that France as a whole was affected after WWII, and the effect on Le Mans itself is covered at 24 Hours of Le Mans.  How is any of this being removed or how is anyone pretending that this never happened?


 * The ACO organised every Le Mans. The fact that the organised one particular Le Mans where an accident happened does not particularly mean this article needs two links to related articles, but ones that have no direct correlation.  Besides organising the race, there is very little the ACO did about 1955 other than some regulation changes (covered in relevant articles), as most of the major reactions in motorsport were made by FISA and other national sporting bodies.  Removal of these links is not at all pretending such events did not happen, they are openly discussed in relevant articles, they were removed because they are not directly relevant to the ACO itself.  A see also section would be for links to similar articles, such as the Fédération Française du Sport Automobile or Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is covered elsewhere does not mean it cannot be referenced here - in WW2 the ACO HQ and circuit infrastructure was destroyed. The ACO also organised the race where the most serious accident in the history of motor racing took place - you might think these facts would rate a mention in any history of the club. You are obviously keen to suppress them. The ACO honoured two resistants after WW2 - I pointed to an article re a third. Why remove the reference to the French article on Charles Faroux? Why remove from talk the German references which can be translated? Is this being constructive? --Rupertlt (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, to put it plainly, absurd. Please become acquianted with Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy.


 * Your information about the ACO during the World Wars has not only not been touched, none of it has been removed. A redundant link to something already linked to in the article is all that has been altered.  And no, I do not think that the 1955 Le Mans disaster is inherently needing to be discussed in an article on the organisation that ran the event.  Their part as organisation played little to no part in the cause or effect of the disaster.  The removal of links to 1955 Le Mans disaster and 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not such events happened.  Something not being mentioned in the article is in no way "suppression" of facts, it is simply addressing relevant issues to the article and what the article should discuss.  This would be similar to a claim that Wikipedia is suppressing something merely because it does not have an article on that thing.  Please re-read my explanation for the removal of these links from your See Also section.  This has to do with Wikipedia's method of style, and nothing to do with the content of the links.


 * The link to the French Wikipedia was removed because this article is not a biography, it is about the organisation. The biography of Faroux, especially in a foreign language Wikipedia, does not belong in a See Also section.


 * Your links to German articles were removed because you simply listed articles on the talk page without any explanation. If you wish to have articles translated, I suggest seeing Requests for Translation.  But again, be aware that this article, Automobile Club de l'Ouest, is about the club, it is not a biography of the history of three men.  The359  ( Talk ) 04:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So we can mention the war but not the accident - you'll be telling me the White Star Line had nothing to do with the sinking of the Titanic next.

I don't need a lecture from a rules freak. You deny good faith to others and drive people away. You could have added useful material to the German thread but you chose not to. There never will be articles on these three men if they don't germinate somewhere. I have made hundreds of useful contributions to Wikipedia as can be seen in My Contributions. As indicated on my talk page I am migrating away from Wikipedia to: http://rupert-lloyd-thomas.wikispaces.com/ Here I don't have to put up with idiots like you. --Rupertlt (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no lecture, there is an explanation being offered to you to explain why things are being done. You came to this talk page to discuss the changes, hence you are being given the style guidelines as an explanation.  And yes, you will have Assume Good Faith quoted to you when you make baseless accusations of intentional wrongdoing or supression of information against another editor, there is no "freak" necessary to have to remind someone to act in a civil manner on a collaborative project such as this.  To reiterate, discuss Wikipedia, its articles, and how these articles are written and presented in a civil and mature manner.


 * What exactly have I done to you to assume bad faith? All I have told you is that you have placed some things in a place they do not belong, and have attempted to fix the article accordingly to fit Wikipedia's layout and style standards.  If you feel driven away because someone is trying to correct a mistake you have made, then that is something you're making up in your head, because it's simply not in any way, shape, or form my intent.


 * No one has ever stated anything about the Le Mans disaster not being allowed to be discussed in the article. As has been explained ad naseum, the link was removed because the See Also section you added was inappropriate for what you felt needed to be included.  For the sake of arguement, White Star Line only makes two brief mentions of the Titanic, and they are only in the main article text.  The See Also section only links to List of White Star Line ships, as it should appropriately.


 * As has been already explained as well, your links to the German Wikipedia articles were removed because you offered no explanation whatsoever of why you were adding links to German Wikipedia. Talk Pages are not repositories for links.  This is not really an appropriate place to germinate an article about a different subject, even if they are related.  Certainly you could start the articles yourself, or more appropriate begin to build them on your own user page, or a Sandbox.  In fact, the Sandbox suggestion was made to you a year ago as well.  Even failing to do this, you have been offered links to places to assist you in helping translate the articles, as you requested here.  These are better alternatives than simply placing links on this talk page for what you are attempting to achieve.


 * Just because you have a history of contributions to Wikipedia does not mean you cannot make errors or simply misunderstand Wikipedia policies. This is a collaborative project, if you are unwilling to allow other users to edit your contributions or to suggest help or corrections, then you're more than welcome to work on your own little off-Wiki project.  The359  ( Talk ) 10:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You have suppressed references to the accident. You are not acting in good faith. I am the only person to bring sourced material to this page (up until now it read like an ACO press release). Why beat up on the only guy who provides inline citations? As far as French and German references are concerned, these are useful sources - I can read them without translating them. You objected to me saying this subject was controversial - so it has proved.

If you are so rulebook minded why didn't you provide inline citations to your contribution? --Rupertlt (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Suppressed references to the accident? By removing the sole link to the article, of which there was no actual text or description?  Sorry, no, that is a logical leap that makes almost not a shred of sense.  And no, the removal (again) of the link is not suppression either, it's me removing something that made no actual expansion to the article.  Either do it properly and fully or don't bother to do it at all.  You have not yet explained how I am acting in bad faith.  If you mean I edited your contributions, then that's not bad faith, sorry, you're not even close to the definition.


 * No one's touched your citations, so why you would assume that you're being "beat up" is beyond me. Nor does it make any sense that simply because you have brought citations, you should somehow be left alone to do as you please.


 * And hooray for you that you can read French and German, but that still does not make them appropriate things to link to from this article, either in a See Also section or anywhere in the article, to be quite honest. This article is not a biography, it makes no sense to link to the biography (in another language) of someone simply because they founded the organisation.


 * What has been proven? I asked why you titled this section "controversy", and why you claimed the WWII history of the club was being "ignored" when none of this has been touched.


 * Provide citations for what contributions? My removing redundant or haphazardly placed links in the article?  What the hell kind of citation would that need?  And in case you have yet to take the hint, I'm pointing you to WP:AGF because you're acting in an uncivil manner, tossing insults around and assuming someone is here to destroy the article without a shred of evidence.  If you want to continue a civil discussion, act in a civil manner.  It is not my fault that you choose to repeatedly ignore my explanations and simply fling accusations around.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, hint hint, if you had bothered to read the German articles fully, you might have seen that the one on Charles Faroux is in fact referenced in English. So no translation is needed, now you can write the biographies yourself, where they are appropriate - on their own page.  You're welcome.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the article lately? Your modus operandi is to drum up a storm of spurious objections in the hope of scaring people away from what you perceive as your turf. It won't work with me. All the original article did was plagiarise the ACO website and provided no citations. I could flag all of it as unsourced - but I know most of Wikipedia is unsourced - I've got over it. When are you going to get over other folk editing this article? I suspect that you are a member of the ACO, with your own agenda. --Rupertlt (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, and I thought it was absurd before. I'm a member of the ACO?  From Pennsylvania, and who does not speak French?  Hmmmm....  I'm pretty certain this fits the definition of baseless accusation, as well as incivility in dealing with another editor.  Accusations of bias require proof, continuing to make baseless accusations will likely require the attention of some administration.  And my agenda is what, to deny the 1955 Le Mans disaster happened?  You do realize I've made several contributions to the 1955 Le Mans disaster article, right?  And that I started the 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans article that you yourself wanted to link to?


 * Now, yes, I read the article lately, and after your edits, and five years ago when this article was originally added to my watch list for adding the WikiProject Sports Car Racing banner to this talk page. What this has to do with my concerns over your edits, I don't know.  I'm not sure why you would think the ACO article is "turf", or why you seem to think I'd want to own it.  Although, I do have to question what article you have been reading lately, as the article is currently flagged as unsourced, and was before you began your edits.  As for "plagarising the ACO website", I see nothing on the ACO website that is similar in text or layout to the Wikipedia article prior to your edits.  Again, accusations of plagarism require proof, please provide them before making this claim again.


 * Other people have been editing this article for years. I've only made three edits to it myself prior to this week.  So how exactly am I stopping people from editing it?  The359  ( Talk ) 04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you reference your material? Then your articles won't wear the unsourced Badge of Shame. Readers are going to think the worst otherwise. If you didn't copy the material from the ACO website where did you get it from and why didn't you tell us? The fact that this situation has been going on for five years does you no credit. BTW I'd like to get rid of that badge. You are currently 12-0 in citations which stand up this page. If you put your boundless energy in to doing some work rather than trying to slap other people around (deleting my talk contribution was unforgivable) then you would conquer the world.

I've been writing about motor racing for forty years, long before you were born, and am consulted by Motor Sport on historical matters. Stop behaving like a Pennsylvania hick. --Rupertlt (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: now 13-0. --Rupertlt (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, reference what material? My articles?  I never wrote this article.  I made three contributions to it, mostly related to the list of races and series that the club organizes, and one of those three edits was to remove an external link that was considered spam.  In case you were not yet aware, you can see the editing history of this article here.  Yet again, you are throwing around wild accusations without any clue of what you're talking about.  As for where people got it from, since it has been a varied collection of people writing on this article, I assume they got it from various sources and made an original article that is not plagarism.  But either way, why you think I am required to add references for other people's work is beyond me, so your little counting scheme seems a bit useless.


 * Your claimed history has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, especially since the bulk of this discussion relates to Wikipedia policies. I suggest sticking to the actual topic of the discussion and now consuming your energy on hapless insults.  I would expect someone of claimed mature age to act in a mature manner when it came to other people, therefore this is your final warning for civility before your behaviour is brought to administrative attention.


 * Now, I can't help but notice that you've now reached the point of no longer addressing the point of this discussion, which was page layout and Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest sticking to this topics, since you have not responded to several points I have made.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right - I have reached that point - a vexacious and fruitless correspondence does pall. What you said is you have been watching an unsourced page, to which you have made unsourced additions. I suggested that you join in and add some references - its called the Wikipedia game - rather than act as blockwarden. As far I am concerned this correspondence is now closed. --Rupertlt (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well of course it's fruitless if you utterly ignore and do not address what has been told to you, instead coming up with absurd excuses for why something underhanded is being done to your precious work. For reference, there are 1,565 articles on my watchlist at the moment.  To assume I somehow am in charge of the content of this page, or that I should be fully rewriting and referencing it simply because it is on my watchlist, is silly.  I made a sole contribution to list ACO's backed series five years ago, without reference, although I would be strained to argue that such a list truly needs a reference.  For clarity, not every edit on Wikipedia needs a reference, it is only items which may be debated or contentious that require references.  That the ACO backs Le Mans-based series is not exactly a contentious statement.


 * Again, you are reminded that Wikipedia is built by consensus. "I don't like what you're saying so I consider the conversation over" is not consensus, and in fact will be detrimental to your time on Wikipedia.   The359  ( Talk ) 18:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It also is built by volunteers in their spare time - it takes two to make an argument. You have upset me more than you know and I prefer to stop. --Rupertlt (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to 1955 Le Mans disaster
I propose to re-instate the link to the 1955 Le Mans disaster. The ACO organised the 1955 Le Mans event, at which occurred the worst accident in motor racing history, with 84 fatalities. It led to many actions by the ACO to subsequently change the physical layout and buildings at the track. It also led to a change of ACO rules for the type of cars permitted at the 1956 event. A fuel-consumption formula was applied that year. Pretending that the ACO was not involved, in any way, does not fit the facts. See: Motor Year Book 1957, Temple Press, Pages 166-171. --Rupertlt (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then discuss these events. A simple link does not discuss these events.  The link was removed not because of the subject matter, but because all you did was add a link.  As has been explained ad naseum.  The359  ( Talk ) 04:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

German
Contributors are encouraged to translate pages - they will need suitable references of course. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Coquille http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Durand http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Faroux --Rupertlt (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of See also
Repeating links in 'See also' can be very useful. When you scroll down through an article links that are higher up disappear. A second link in See also can be timely. As a former web designer I know that few people will scroll back again. Indeed it is best if the crucial information appears at the start above the fold. See Jakob Neilsen at http://www.useit.com/ --Rupertlt (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia, and we have a consensus-built method of style agreed upon by the community at large. We are not going to ignore Wikipedia style guidelines simply because you feel better, especially on such a short article that has practically no scrolling whatsoever.  I can almost fit the entire article onto the screen of my cellphone.  See also sections are also not meant for a plethora of redundant links.  The359  ( Talk ) 04:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a 22" screen here, 10" top to bottom and can only see half the article at any one time. New ideas don't need strangling at birth - we wouldn't have the web to write on if we'd gone down that path. Besides the article is going to get much longer - we have L'Affaire Chapman to cover yet! --Rupertlt (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SEEALSO, we have a guideline for See Also sections, no matter the length of the article. If you want to revamp the entire method of style for Wikipedia, this is not the place to make such suggestions, and simply ignoring the guideline because you think you know a better way will not be well received.  Again, we work by consensus, not by who thinks they are right.  These links are being given for your benefit, I suggest you read them.


 * I will however quote in case you do not bother to read them.
 * "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example)" - 1955 Le Mans disaster and 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans are already in the ACO navigation template at the bottom of the article.
 * "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles." - Emphasis mine, not external links to other Wikipedias. The359  ( Talk ) 18:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral not neutered
The section on WW2 has been neutered by use of the passive - phrases like "were in ruins" do not explain how this came about, a mixture of allied bombing and German destruction by bulldozer and arson. This is a bit like the phrase "war broke out" - as if by magic. --Rupertlt (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about WWII, it is an article about an automobile club. That the infastructure was destroyed is the key element of the history of the club.  Further, your edit button appears to work, you're free to utilize it to change the article.  The359  ( Talk ) 04:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to edit anything as I get jumped on by a certain star-spangled micromanager. I think this page would be in perfectly good hands if you never looked at it again. This whole correspondence has run its course - I suggest we get with improving the article - there is much to do. --Rupertlt (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:OWN. The further insults are now being taken up with administration.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Musée de l'Automobile de la Sarthe
This is situated at the entrance to the Le Mans circuit. It is apparently a joint venture between the regional council and the ACO. A reference and some photographs would be good. --Rupertlt (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Grand Prix de l'ACF
I would need to research this further but there was a period when both the Grand Prix de l'ACF and the French Grand Prix were being held. It is not simply one became the other. I tried to cover that point. --Rupertlt (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)