Talk:Danica Patrick

message: 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)
replies: text: Concur. ZueJay (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I also removed the Irish-American categories for the same reason. Aleta Sing 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RC tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fix the banner on the left side 

message: 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.  —  MusicMaker5376 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not even all that strange - 14 is a typical age for an incoming high school freshman.  Schoop (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HS Cheerleader 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: And not everyone has a bio on Wikipedia ;-) Notability is, as ever, the watchword. 4u1e (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. ;D ;D  Darkseid what do you mean, bow before Zod?  17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you're a very, very lucky boy, girl or other non-gender specific entity. :D 4u1e (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shes half Serbian

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nicole Manske info  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 Wikipedia: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."Wikipedia: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)

text: 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 Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --RossF18 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Yes, renamed title a better option.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Racing ability" section is subjective partisan banter. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Controversy addition 

message: 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)
replies: text: I second your proposal to edit as you state.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  F1 in Controversy Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section integration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  F1 Virgin Racing offered Danica Patrick a full-time seat for 2010 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Pole position for the race. (There's a collapsible key just above the table. :)) 4u1e (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cannot believe I missed that that was listed on the key. Wow. Thanks! Dml4dsp (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recisions 2010-03-14 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2010 Indy 500 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Use the name in use at the time. 4u1e (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changes made. Think I got them all. Thanks for your input! Dml4dsp (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andretti Autosport vs Andretti Green Racing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox Formatting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Most Popular Driver" credit is incorrect. It should read 2005-2010. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not first at Daytona?

message: 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)
replies: text: The owner is Tommy Baldwin, but her cars are fielded by Stewart-Haas. - Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 13:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SHR vs TBR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  -- The lede now looks great, without glasses. -- AstroU (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend new photo 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  -- You don't need to look; it is no longer in the article.  -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of "CrossFit" stinks of advertisement  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox - best finish 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any source documenting Scottish ancestry for Danica? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Top 10's for women