Talk:The Stig

Archive 3

It was getting too long, so I filed away the old stuff. Kinda bringing up the current discussion to the top.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Collins

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/top-gears-the-stigs-identity-finally-revealed-as-formula-three-driver-ben-collins-report/story-e6frfmyi-1225908440291

NEW evidence has reportedly unmasked the mystery racing driver known as The Stig who appears in "Top Gear" disguised in a white helmet and black visor.

Documents naming a former Formula Three driver called Ben Collins, 35, point to his being the famous anonymous figure, NewsCore reports.

Though his name has been suggested before, this is the first time evidence has apparently linked Collins to the arrival of the white-clad Stig on Top Gear in 2003 - replacing the previous “black” Stig.

The accounts of the driver's company, Collins Autosport, show he established an important commercial relationship with Top Gear just as the new Stig appeared.

In December 2003, a month after the new Stig’s first appearance, the firm recorded a “cornerstone year".

This was partly down to "driving services provided for the BBC, mainly in the Top Gear program". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.133 (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence in The Guardian Online. Published: Wednesday 1 September 2010 20.32 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/sep/01/the-stig-identity-high-court Dreammaker182 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section - Ben Collins

The information that Ben Collins is the 'White Stig' is both well-sourced and highly relevant to this article. A range of independant secondary sources have confirmed this, including the Guardian and the Daily Mail currently provided as refrences. It's importance of this information to this subject means it merits mention in the lead, there is absolutely no reason to bury or obscure such information. I've reinstated this paragraph, and would be grateful if people wishing to hide this information would provide convincing arguments here before removing it again. 82UK (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)actuaaly this is wrong michael schumacher is the stig it was revealed in one of there shows editdor please try to put his in as i dont know how to.

You need to report what the sources say accurately. The lead statement, as written, is not accurate. All the sources in the world are worthless if what they say is not presented as written. Drmargi (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair comment, and a good argument for rewriting the lead (as I have now done). It is not, however, a good argument for supressing the information entirely. I've added 3 new references and reworded the statement. When pretty much every major newspaper in the UK has published this it would be mad not to include it. 82UK (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No one is supressing anything -- please be careful about accusations (and WP:3RR, which you've violated, while you're at it). You have a burden of accuracy, which your rewritten lead still does not meet. He's not "widely believed" to be Ben Collins, and that's NOT what the sources say. Drmargi (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, you also need to conform to Wikipedia: STYLE guidelines, as your bare links DO NOT conform to the style guidelines. Please fix the concerns raised. Y'know what, i'm gonna be bold and damn teh rules.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he has breached the 3RR as each edit was different (i.e. adding more sources). 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridies (talk • contribs) 23 August 2010

Well, he's squeaking by given that at least two other editors have "intervened" in his edits (by my interpritation of the rules). He hasn't "chained" a three-fer yet. But then again, someone can report him for excessive editing if it gets to that point.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I gave him a heads up instead of reporting (a bit heavy-handed, to say the least) or put a warning on his talk page. I've seen plenty of people done for 3RR violations just like this one. Drmargi (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Right, did the edit. Kinda iffy on using reference marks in the lead, looks ugly as sin.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the edit - if the lead mentions Collins just because he is the current focus of the media, it is clearly WP:RECENTISM. Until he is confirmed (not claimed) by a reliable source, it should stay that way. Halsteadk (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

AANNNNNNDDDDD...just reverted someone altering the infobox up top. Oh, Nice! But, Halsteadk, I think we can allow reasonable edits to the lead.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, gimme a break, I had no idea you weren't meant to edit an article more than 3 times in a day - five hardly seems excessive when I'm trying to revise what I'm putting in in light of criticism each time. Besides, surely Drmargi must be over the same limit. And I have no idea what you mean by a 'bare link', I put in 5 different links to 5 different newspaper articles, didn't realise there were stylistic rules on ho to do that. As it is I'll just make my case here for now.

The whole of the British Press is reporting the speculation that Ben Collins is the Stig. This is not a recent phenomena, as newspapers have been suggesting this since at least January. However, recent articles have, for the most part, dropped specific refrences to any individual other than Ben Collins in this role. Seeing as one of the main reasons for the Stig being mentioned in secondary sources (like the press) is due to his identity, this is some of the most important information about the role and ought to be in the lead section. Since Ben Collins has repeatedly been linked to the role in the press (unlike anybody else), this should be clearly mentioned. Since the speculation that the Stig is Ben Collins is highly relevant and verifiable, comment should be made of this speculation in the lead. 82UK (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

....Which needs to be incorporated into THE MAIN ARTICLE, not the lead. Otherwise, you'd then need to include a whole host of other drivers speculated as being the Stig, which, as I last checked, was a pretty long dang list. The purpose of the lead is to be a brief intro to the article, highlighting the key points. Not be Collin Fanboys own personal website. You believe Benny is Stiggy, go ahead, nobody's gonna stop ya. But when your on Wikipedia, we have guidelines, and they need to be basiclly followed.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion on who the Stig is or isn't has no relevance to this discussion. Yes, I understand other names have been suggested in the past. But the fact is none of those others have had an article about speculation of them in the role as the most-read news story on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11058504). The coverage surrounding Ben Collins has been hugely extensive, and eclipses that of any other individual in connection to this position. This is a media trend that has existed since January of this year at the latest. Given that the most (indeed, almost solely) significant fact about the Stig (in terms of amount of third-party coverage generated) is the speculation around his identity, and for the past half-year or more that coverage has over-whelmingly focused on Ben Collins, this speculation ought to be mentioned in the lead. 82UK (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This an article about The Stig, not Ben Collins. Revealing that the Stig is Ben Collins in the lead only caters to a group of people who are dead set in this theory and in turn, violates Wikipedia:NPOV. It's presenting a theory that is only supported by one factor/faction of speculation. Whereas just saying "Oh, numerous drivers have been called Stiggy by various people" spreads out the speculation to at least fairly cover all bases and gives other theorists their fair shake in the debate without seeming to favor one theory over the other. You need to realize that until he is confirmed as the Stig, he will only remain as one of the speculated drivers as being The Stig, NOTHING MORE. Heck, in a few months after things die down abit, I expect the latest revelation is gonna be quickly edited out and reincorporated elsewhere in the article.

Now in the case of Perry McCarthy, he outed himself in his autobiography, which we all can agree on. His mention in the lead is acceptable because of this fact.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, the policy is WP:UNDUE. On reflection I would agree it's probably giving undue weight to these claims to put them in the lead. At the risk of pushing WP:CRYSTAL we should wait until there's something conclusive (in which case it would merit mention as with McCarthy). Schumacher's appearance probably generated as much press as this and that was all but confirmed as red herring. bridies (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that people speculate Stig's real identity is a part of Stig's history. And when you have Top Gear playing on this stigma via Star in a Reasonably Priced car with F1 drivers, the whole Michael Schumacher reveal, and even them jokingly trying to "out" the Stig themselves via various means, it just adds to the whole mystery of the Stig. We should at least keep the speculation part.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what I wrote above, with the exec producer blogging at length and being quoted on BBC News today, this now has much more clout than any other previous claim or media rumour, and I think merits a passing mention in the lead (as User:Sumbuddi has added). Halsteadk (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone could've at least properly formatted the links to proper citations. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Collins is the Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossdo (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

However if you read Ben Collin's page, it states he was replaced as The Stig fairly recently. I imagine that won't be in his autobiography. So if that becomes confirmed, and The Stig reincarnates into another colour perhaps... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.229.239 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ben Collins is referred to as a 'Consultant' in the BBC Report of Richard Hammond's crash in the Vampire Dragster. See report here (page 8): http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/pdf/topgear.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.25.91 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Identity

"All that can be seen from the gap between his helmet and jumpsuit is that he is a white male with dark hair." I dont see how this "gap" shows the Stig is male, can someone explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.43.250 (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, in one episode in Germany the Stig was clearly someone with blonde hair showing bellow the back of the helmet. Possibly this was a guest appearance by TopGear favourite Sabine Schmitz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Schmitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.11.101 (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

James May was a guest on BBC Breakfast today, promoting his new book, but during the interview he "revealed" he was the Stig - perhaps tongue-in-cheek? I can't find any other coverage of this. Should it be mentioned in the article?

Edit request from 84.43.31.235, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The Stig revealed as racing driver Ben Collins

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7975346/Top-Gear-court-case-The-Stig-revealed-as-racing-driver-Ben-Collins.html

84.43.31.235 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} It is now widely reported that The White Stig is Ben Collins, The BBC lost a high court injunction to prevent the publication of Ben's autobiography in which he reveals he is the Stig.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11151777

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-stig-unmasked-as-bond-stunt-double-ben-collins-2067607.html

Many other British newspapers are also reporting the story.

The wikipedia page for Ben Collins already mentions this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Collins_%28racing_driver%29

Also worth noting that supposedly Ben Collins has been replaced as The Stig already. Not sure if there is any confirmation of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.229.239 (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Please specify the text you would like to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of the Lead

As it stands, the lead is bloated with shit. I think at this point, given the circumstances and recent events, we need to plan out what should be included and what shouldn't be included. I'd be bold, but I rather get the input of those involved first instead of blindly plowing thru and causing a rift.

The basic stuff I want to be in the lead would be:

• Establishes himself and his role on Top Gear, including his "job."
• Identity of both Stigs (McCarthy and Collins) and fandom speculation leading to it.

Thats all I can think of. Any other ideas?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, we seem to have gotten a whole slew of unreferenced information as well. We might have to seriously rewrite the article to comply with the guidelines.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the lede is sourced in the main article, I guarantee it. And for an article this long and convoluted, the summary covers the main points, and is the regulation four paragraphs. I am frankly baffled by your tagging, and wholly pissed off that your first instinct on seeing large scale work is to start by calling it 'shit' and unreferenced. I must have at least doubled the total number of secondary refs used in this article. What little remains unreferenced will have come from the old version, and should be uncontroversial. MickMacNee (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Blame the shit thing on watching "Clarkson Island," which I had in the background. Back on subject, its not paraphrasing the article, it's just giving a Cliffnotes version of the article in the lead. I'll focus on the identity part as an example: It could be completely done in a way where it just focuses on three core verifiable facts: Press/Fan Speculation, Perry McCarthy as Black Stig, and Ben Collins as White Stig (for the time being, pending future events). Enough material to catch people's attention without drawing in every single driver that has been accused of being Stiggy. As I see it, mentioning several other people whom either are minor footnotes to "maybe, but only worth only in passing" is pushing the lead to cruft levels.

Also, I noticed that it's filled with Fancruft and unnecessary words. A quick gloss over example: A wikilink to gimp is better than explaining what exactly a gimp is. It's fine to mention what Stig wears, but unless you can properly source it, we can only speculate (heck, I think one link was for a commercial site IIRC. Shoddy at best, but we've done far worse to the article). And someone has completely removed Damon Hill's appearance on SIARPC from that section as well.

It's good that its improved, but in the process, it got worse in the process. And other people need to clean it up to get it right. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RE the speculaion of what Stig wears. It can be properly sourced that the costume consists of Tech 1 ZX gloves and Tech 1 T shoes, not the mentioned article pieces at all. A simple google search alone will bring up undisputable photographical evidence.

Edit request from Sav609, 2 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} ben collins has not been confirmed as the stig only speculation!

Sav609 (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• It was confirmed by a high-court judge? How much more proof do you need? -- Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 15:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Perry McCarthy

Link to read book [1], a few pages in "First published in July 2002" "This paperback edition published in September 2003". And the text about 'The Stig' has been added just before the end of the book (obvious really, in chronological terms). There's no mention of any 'falling out', or disagreement with the BBC. There is clear proof there that McCarthy published the book 1 epsiode prior to being killed.

There are conflicting sources on why he was killed off, so I propose a simple chronology detailing the book's publication followed by his 'death' without further comment, given that the BBC never said why he left (well they wouldn't would they), and it was not reported on or notable at the time. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Appollo [sic]

Typo needs correction in Replacement Stig Speculation section: 'Appollo' --> 'Apollo' 137.222.114.238 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

End of the White Stig

Clarkson apparently came forward and said that Ben Collins has been sacked to a local media outlet called Witney TV. Don't know if it can be completely verified, but it was big enough for ABC to cover it. Related: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/08/3005874.htm Shocuda (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Same thing here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/3129084/TOP-Gears-Jeremy-Clarkson-confirms-Stig-aka-Ben-Collins-is-sacked.html Halsteadk (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pay cut

* Rickman, Dina (2010-09-19). "Top Gear Stig to take pay cut". Daily Star. Retrieved 2010-09-19.

—Sladen (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing this is included? Sounds like gutter press rumours to fill column inches to me. I doubt anyone from the BBC would tell them, are they implying that confidentiality will not be part of the new role, and the Star thinks the new series starts later this year, but TG Magazine says next year (I think I know who to believe). The most telling part of that website is the link that says "More 'news' here" - i.e. the ironic quotes around 'news'. Halsteadk (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote Link

The link won't work anymore. (87.173.122.35 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

Crystal Balls

Any chance we could wait for some reliably sourced facts before buying into Top Gear hype? Call me a cynic, but the court case generated a lot of publicity for Top Gear and I suspect sold a lot of copies of the book and a lot of Stig toys for Christmas. The Stig is still featured in Top Gear, present or not, there will almost certainly be a "new" Stig, and by the nature of the part we won't know whether or not it's still Ben Collins whatever colour it is... -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which facts are you disputing? --Bdoserror (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That the Stig is no longer part of Top Gear, and that Ben Collins will no longer be the Stig. May be so, but we have no reliable source. --Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Major reference issue

A large number of cite errors appear in the references section. The issue is with ref names that aren't used elsewhere in the text, but I can't find the edit where it all went wrong, nor can I work out where the refs have all gone. —Half Price 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DDTGFan came through late last month and did a long series of revisions to the article over the course of several days, leaving the string of broken refs and links in his/her wake. I left a message on his/her talk page requesting he/she come back through and clean up the mess, but so far, no response. He/she has not edited since completing the revision. At this point, I think we've got two options: someone with the patience of Job needs to follow and fix the mess, or we revert back to the version before all the edits were made. Either way, we need to open a discussion on the appropriate noticeboard regarding his/her failure to fix the broken links and lack of response to the messages on his/her talk page. Drmargi (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we've past the point where a huge revert to the pre-DDTGFAN era is possible. —Half Price 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, someone's going to have to clear it up, or revert is just what I'm going to do. It can't stay as it is. Drmargi (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed! And it wasn't as hard as we thought. Basically, the article uses a rarely-seen reference system where the {{Reflist}} template has the refs listed inside it, and so if you remove a <ref name="blahblah"/> from the article, the ref lies dormant inside the {{Reflist}} template. So all I had to do was remove the dormant refs. —Half Price 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done, you! It would have been a shame to revert all that revision -- DDTG really did some nice cutting of the fat from the article. Drmargi (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)