Talk:Tom Walkinshaw

Holden cheater award etc
Hi. I think I need to explain at greater length why it is that your recent additions to this page are not suitable for Wikipedia. This does not have anything in particular to do with your views on Tom Walkinshaw, whether they be right or wrong - I don't follow Aussie V8 racing. For the record I'm not a particular fan of Mr Walkinshaw.

The first few times this text was added it was done with no indication of its source and therefore appeared to stand as encyclopedic content in its own right. It therefore did not meet several Wikipedia guidelines - WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING being the most obvious (click on the blue links to see what these say). The little that did not immediately fall foul of those guidelines was eventually left and I have started to reference the article, which gave no sources for any of its content, to give a more consistent approach.

You have now specified that the words you are adding are from a motorsports forum. This puts things in a slightly different light, the presumed intention being to quote what others are saying, not to push the information as encyclopedic content in itself. Nonetheless, generally forums are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Reliable_sources. I would also question whether someone's post, no matter how amusing or accurate you may find it, is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia (See WP:NOTABLE).

As you are on a changing IP address I can't reliably contact you to open a discussion. I hope that you will feel able to discuss why you think the material should be included on this talk page.

Cheers. 4u1e 15:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

REPLY
Hi, I'm the user that added the material referring to the source as a forum. However, I didn't add the previous entries (they are documented as being there and being deleted/ reposted in a Ford forum)

I have strong feelings towards the issue, so when I went to the page via link to find it had been removed, I copied it from the forum and re added it. I knew it would porbably be deleted anyway, it was mostly subjective. But if you know the sport, then you know there is truth behind it and as a registered user, I have every confidence that you can appropriately document the issue.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.192.4 (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Copyright violation
Just noticed that the most recent edit to this page is copied directly from this internet news article and thus is a violation of copyright and will be deleted. You are not allowed to copy directly from another website without permission, and from a News Limited newspaper that will certainly not be forthcoming. --Falcadore (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth
Adam Cooper's article gives Walkinshaw's year of birth as 1946, not 1950, and his age at death as 64, so it's presumably not an error. Does anyone have additional information?-- Midgrid  (talk)  18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Other websites: http://www.biography-center.com/biographies/9236-Walkinshaw_Tom.html http://tom-walkinshaw.epik.com/ http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/when_was_tom_walkinshaw_born

have 1950, so Adam Cooper might have got it wrong 86.133.163.226 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now Joe Saward gives his age as 63.-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Death
I'm hearing the rumours too, but does anybody consider "Joe Saward's Grand Prix Blog" to be a reliable source? Guinness (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit comment noted, but I'm a little nervous that the news consists of one blog and a lot of re-tweets (particularly, since the blog appreas to have the DOB wrong). Guinness (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Joe Saward and Adam Cooper are both experienced, well-informed motorsport journalists, and I'm sure the news will appear on proper news websites in due course.-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but lack of reporting elsewhere also makes me nervous. The blog is technically on the edge as a reliable source - the writer is a professional journalist and an expert in the field, but it's his personal blog, which is not subject to any other editorial control. What the hell, let's remove it for now - we're not a news source, after all. 4u1e (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about them, so I don't really have grounds to dispute you, but I'm sure you can appreciate that I'm a little concerned that "experienced, well-informed motorsport jounalists" would get something as simple as age wrong! Guinness (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * People frequently lie about their age, in the case of racing drivers (and Walkinshaw originally was one) to avoid seeming over-the-hill - so I'm not sure it is a particularly simple matter. Adam Cooper's put the story up on the SpeedTV website now, which I guess does have editorial oversight. 4u1e (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Autosport has it now, and has his age at 60. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88672 Guinness (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The text has later changed, it seems ("Former racing driver and team owner Tom Walkinshaw has died. The 64-year-old had been suffering from cancer."). ,,n (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * oldracingcars.com lists his DOB as 14 Aug 1946 - they're usually pretty reliable. DH85868993 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth
GPUpdate.net says he was born on 17th november, not 14th august. What is right? - (d)  Green Yoshi   (c)  19:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * oldracingcars.com lists his DOB as 14 Aug 1946 - they're usually pretty reliable. DH85868993 (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Third World Racing
When in 1983 the Walkinshaw SD1 Rovers were caught with too large wheel arches, TW claimed that Rover fitted larger wheel arches on cars sold in developing country markets to cope with mud. Later on, somebody painted ‘TWR = Third World Racing’ on a promotional TWR Rover in the paddock. The cars were disqualified for the season. --2003:C6:3738:2C7D:7D5E:B200:5C70:6DF7 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)