Talk:Michael Schumacher/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

Popularity thing

WRT to the thing about popularity. I would have to say that Ralf Schumacher was 19 by the time his brother became WDC and Heidfeld also was a teenager by then. Can you back up your assertions that SChumacher specifically caused a boom in the skill level and talent pool of racing drivers. What about participation rates for young drivers. At the moment it implies he specifically causes more success for Germany at the highest level. He is not a racing coach nor does he run an F1 academy. He has definitely increased popular viewing, but has he increased grassroots participation? At the most we should note the grassroots increase. It is inapporporiate to claim that he is responsible for success of other elite drivers. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, you cannot prove there is causation with just a correlation, just like you can't prove that winning more WDCs than anyone other driver makes schumacher by default the greatest driver on that criterion alone. It's one fact of many, though, and the veracity of the claim is unquestionable, and it is in fact suggestive that schumacher indeed had some effect in bringing more German drivers in formula one. Do you really think schamucher just increased the popularity of the sport in Germany only to WATCH it? It's pretty hard to argue with all the talented German drivers in forumla one right now. Perhaps you want to wade through 50 years of F-1 WDC statistics and see if you can come up with 3 Germans in the top ten in any other era?Ernham 03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
F1 is not a normal sport. It is an extreme sport, and is very dangerous. I like F1, but I have never ever tried go-karts at all, whereas I do enjoy having a hit of cricket and kicking a ball around from time to time. Success does generate TV ratings, increased merchandise and also grassroots participation. I agree and encourage you to add stats with respect to this increase in grassroots participation, merchandise sales , etc, - this is definitely true, I would suspect that interest in spectatorship would be more than the number of people deciding to drive around in a sagnerous manner. As I pointed out before, Ralf and Heidfeld were alreay fully grown by the time Schumacher was successful (and I think Rosberg is due to his dad), so to allude that he is highly responsible for elite level success when he is not a coach, manager etc, is stretching it. Also in the 1990s you had Frentzen, so that's two. Were you also aware perhaps awarethat BMW is *believed* to have a policy of favourable German drivers for perhaps commerical reasons, same as Honda for Japanese drivers? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I am merely stating a fact, one that does not conclusively prove schumacher has increased F-1 participation, but does in fact suggest he has. I've stated the fact, not the conclusion. The reader can speculate how they chose, but the fact is still a fact, and it is applicable to the argument of Schuamcher's increase in popularity of the sport. In short, I fail to see any logical issue whatsoever anyone would have with the inclusion of that information. We could speculate all day for possible others reason for the increase, but this wiki is about Schumacher. Ernham 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Since I dug out my trusty calculator, I hammered on the statistics on this popularity issue. The mean frequency of Germans in the top 10 prior to the entrance of Schuamcher into Formula one was .175(layman's terms: that only one German would generally make the top ten approximately every 6 years of formula one.) The standard deviation was .44. In Schumacher's last year, with 3 Germans in the top ten, the right tail of the assumedly(n>40) normal distribution of this statistic has a probability of .00000000059. Layman's terms: The chance that 3 Germans would make the top ten purely by coincidence is .000000059%. In scientific AND layman's terms: no way in hell did that happen randomly.Ernham 12:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm losing track of this argument, but for what it's worth - I think the original comment had some validity. The current crop of drivers would be drivers anyway - but Michael's success is responsible for the current high profile of motor racing in Germany, which I think may well have produced the financial backing which has put those drivers where they now are. -- Ian Dalziel 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


The removal of this section was deplorable, smelling or jingoism. Here's Vettel's words himself "In Germany, F1 stands for Michael Schumacher. What he did for the sport in Germany was fantastic and it was very good for all of us young drivers who came up the ladder. For sure he opened up some doors for all of us."Ernham 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot argue the math. You cannot argue with a German driver's own words. Do not remove the section again. Ernham 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Brawn, Byrne, Todt at Ferrari and previously

I've just removed the comment "The same members that Schumacher brought to Ferrari from Benetton, however, had no success in creating a competitive racing team prior to the hiring of Schumacher." from the article.

This seems to cover Brawn and Byrne (explicitly) and Todt (implicitly - since it is not clear in the current wording that he arrived at Ferrari before Schumacher and recruited him to the team).

Looking at their biogs on www.grandprix.com we can see that:

Todt had a long and extremely successful career managing Peugeot Sport (2 world rally championships, 4 Paris-Dakars, 2 Le Mans 24 hours and 1 World Sportscar championship).

Ross Brawn had moderate success designing for Arrows in 1987 and 1988 - fourth place for Arrows is a pretty good result! He also designed the Jaguar XJR-14, which won the 1991 World Sportscar Championship (beating Schumi in a Sauber-Merc on the way!), was very competitive in IMSA racing in the States the next year and formed the basis of the TWR-Porsche which won a couple of Le Mans in the mid-1990s. (You'll have to take my word for the last two bits - I'm sure I can verify if anyone queries it).

Rory Byrne had some success at Benetton, who won a race most years up to 1994.

The removed sentence doesn't really seem to match the facts. Admittedly they hadn't achieved success on the scale that they subsequently would, but then, no-one has :) --4u1e 00:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dummy assessment against GA criteria

The Good Article criteria can be found here.

Going through one by one (in reverse order, cos I find it easier):

Images: Pass, in my view. Images are not a GA requirement, but if present must be appropriately tagged, as these are. There are improvements that could be made, however:

  • No pictures from early career.
  • Pictures are a bit 'samey' (i.e. lots of pics of Schumi in a red car) - more interesting pics are hidden down at the bottom of the article. We should consider moving them around to get more variety in tone.
  • Captions are present, but not very interesting. We should think how we can use them to draw readers in - the Japan 2006 pic could say something like "Schumacher at the 2006 GP shortly before the engine failure which virtually ended his chances of an eighth world title". And so on. See WP:CAP.

Stability: Fail, at present. Not surprising this, and will hopefully improve as we get further away from the current season. Nothing to worry about at present.

Neutral Point of view: See WP:NPOV. Fail I believe we have problems here, and would fail the article at GA on this one. Problems are mainly of assertion (i.e. asserting a particular point of view, rather than simply stating the facts) and in fairness of tone (i.e. facts may be stated, but are 'coloured' by the language around them). Some examples:

  • 'Scumacher impressed the paddock' & 'After his impressive debut'
  • 'Despite Hill having the superior car, he struggled to keep pace with Schumacher'
  • 'Despite this bold and risky move' (joining Ferrari)
  • The whole second paragraph of 'Ferrari years' presents quite an argumentative approach to its topic - better to simply state the facts and quote some relevant views.
  • 'Some fans argue that it was not only bad luck that prevented Schumacher from winning the 1998 world championship' (Following section probably goes into more detail than is required here.
  • 'Schumacher started 2006 well'
  • 'Some believe the claims of Schumacher's "poor sportsmanship" are little more than sour grapes in a sport that has become increasingly competitive.'
  • 'Schumacher's critics allege that, knowing his car was damaged, he intentionally drove his car into Hill's in order to take the Briton out of the race.'
  • 'However, this was not the first incident of the sort in F1 history, and while Schumacher was judged to have been at fault, others have escaped punishment for similar situations.'
  • The whole of para 4 under 'Sportsmanship' is argumentative - from both points of view. There's some good and interesting material in there though.
  • 'Nevertheless, team orders are at times practiced by many teams and, despite bans by the FIA, can be executed discreetly.' The relevant point is simply that they were not illegal at the time of the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix.
  • The whole second to last para of 'Team orders' seems constructed to support the use of team orders - not neutral or necessary in my view.

I'll come back and go through the other three criteria later. I'll emphasise again that this isn't a formal review for GA, just my take on how it would go. I do carry out GA reviews on other articles though, so hopefully I have some idea what I'm doing! :D Cheers. 4u1e 23 October 2006


Broad in coverage: Pass Includes family life and activity outside F1 - good.

Accurate and verifiable: Fail Variable. Some bits very well referenced. Others are sketchy - Benetton years, Most of the Ferrari years up to 2005 (which includes some quite contentious statements), Records, Most of the 'Controversy' section (again - contentious). There may also be a problem with the quality of some of the references. The reference for the rather um, bold statement that "the 2005 rules changes were entirely targetted to ending the domination of Ferrari and Schumacher" is a throwaway line in an unattributed (i.e. we don't know who wrote it) article from the Associated Press, not a noted authority on F1. --4u1e 06:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well written: Fail Some changes needed per WP:MoS. See the automated comments from the Peer Review for these, here. A lot of these are quite quick to fix.

Not sure where to put this, but the balance of the piece is wrong. As many of us have noted, the 2006 season summary is much, much longer than the others - it probably still needs to be cut to half to one third the length - any material that can't be used here probably belongs in the individual race reports or the 2006 season summary. The controversy/sportsmanship/team orders sections are very long in relation to the rest of the piece as well and could do with editing down. Cheers 4u1e

Forking

With such a long career and many incidents, twists, turns, I feel that the article needs to be forked rather than simply chopped up with half the article thrown away. What are the logical ways of steamlining into components? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I agree, article seems a bit repetitive and wordy and can I think be shortened significantly without throwing anything important away. Quite a lot of it has turned into season summaries of each year he had competed - covering rather more than Schumacher himself - and the 'extra' material could be transferred to the relevant F1 season summary, if it doesn't appear there already. Similarly removing the argumentative material I mention above and sticking simply to the facts would produce a worthwhile reduction. I don't think it can get down to 32k, but 45-50 ish ought to be achievable.--4u1e 05:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Accumulation records

I can see what is meant here, but think it will just be confusing for a reader new to the topic - it's not even discussed all that often in the specialist press. I think it is better to leave the lead simply to say 'has won more races etc etc' and then go into how this compares to others - including the win to race ratio - in the main text under 'records'. The lead is also getting a little long at 6 paras, so could do with trimming anyway. --4u1e 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Helmet

Talking about helmets, I heard until 2002 he wore Bell helmet, he upset them and S.P.O.R.T.S. Europe about that deal with Schberth, i have got some extra info about this here. For all these who wants some extra info, I already added bits about the helmet he wore as I used to own a few Minichamp brochure which features them. Willirennen 12.50 24 Oct 2006

Is the helmet really notable and important enough to be on the article? It's nothing personal, it's just that the article was very very big, almost 100kb, it is being reduced a lot, like removed quotes at the retirement section, reduced the season 2006 section and all. The helmet is taking space, and I'm not sure that it qualifies as being important enough to be here. That's more technical information, which maybe doesn't have a space on Wikipedia. If we put the helmets, why not adding his suits or his shoes and such? Still, I'd like to see what other users have to say about this. Cheers and thanks for the contributions :)--Serte 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of the material was in the article anyway - I just split it out as a seperate header - partly to provoke such debate. It has to be said that there is room for material on the helmet in the Damon Hill (FA) and Gilles Villeneuve (GA) articles. I don't think it's particularly critical however, and - if pushed - can go. However, personally, I'd like to see the wordiness of the 2006 season and Controversy/Sportsmanship/Team Orders bits addressed before we conclude that we have to dump it. 4u1e
Another thought: How about an image of his helmet like the one in the Fernando Alonso article - Would that give the same info in a better way? 4u1e

Wealth

Although Schumacher is refered in the lead of the article as the first billionaire athlete, there is little reference about it in the text, only a few trivia stuff. Do you think there should be a section about this, his wealth, and publicity he's made just to show the impact he had as a sportsman?--Serte 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Controvery etc section

Can I float a suggestion for this piece? A lot of its length is down to the 'framing structure' and to editorialising about the meaning of the various incidents. Can we pare it down to a single section under 'Controversy' (or similar) with brief factual accounts of:

  • 1994 Allegations of cheating with Benetton
  • 1994 clash with Hill
  • 1997 clash with Villeneuve
  • 1998 British GP
  • Team orders - centered around 2002? in Austria
  • 2006 incident at Monaco

Given that the 'getting a push' topic seems to have argued itself to a standstill - the current wording suggests that it's a non-issue - I suggest that it could be left out.

Does that fly as a suggestion - or am I going to get shot down in flames? (Retires to bomb shelter and pulls tin hat down over ears). 4u1e

KABOOOOMMM!! All kidding aside, I totally agree with you. It's time to finally put those controversy and incident sections organized. Those parts are the worse of the article. They are not very well-written and need POV to be totally eliminated. I'm on to it. --Serte 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to re-write the whole section on a personal page, but my main difficult is really finding reliable sources and how to use them. I mean, many many people criticize Schumacher for what he did in 1994 but it's impossible to find a reference for "many people". Also, there are fans that claim he was innocent, such as in [1]. Whatever I write looks to me like POV anyway, so it's really hard. What are the facts? Schumacher closed the door? You could claim he didn't, he just made the manouver as it should be made. You could claim Hill shouldn't try to overtake there.

Facts:

  • Schumacher was one point ahead of Hill in the championship with one race to go.
  • Schumacher was leading until lap 20 [2]
  • Schumacher crashed into the wall hitting with the right side hills. (What was it? A mistake? a twitch?)
  • Schumacher managed to get back on track with Hill just behind him pressuring
  • Hill tried to overtake, but they crashed. (What can you say about this? Schumacher crashed onto Hill? The opposite?)
  • While Schumacher quitted (?) right there, Hill completed the lap, went into the pit stops where he retired due to the damages made to his car during the crash being unrepairable.

I'll do my best effort on making something out of this that satisfies guidelines. By the way, can youtube videos be used as a source?--Serte 17:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Youtube is a bit dodgy - firstly because the legality of what is on it is often suspect (How come there's video of the incident there in the first place? Who owns the copyright?) but also because to a third party little of what you see will seem 'evident'. It's still your (my, whoevers) judgement as to whether Schumacher drove into Hill or vice versa.
regarding neutrality of the Adelaide incident, I think neutral wording would look something like:
"On lap XX of the race, Schumacher went off the track at turn XX, hitting the wall with his right rear tyre. He returned to the track at reduced speed. Hill, who had been closing on the German before the incident, caught him at turn XX. As they approached the corner, Hill moved to pass his rival on the inside. Schumacher turned into the corner and the two collided. Schumacher's car was tipped up onto two wheels and eliminated on the spot, while Hill was withdrawn shortly afterwards by his team due to damaged front suspension. A Reliable Witness has said that Schumacher took the normal racing line for the corner, although Numerous Pundits have blamed the German for the incident, which gave him his first crown, claiming that he must have known his car was damaged."
Where A Reliable Witness and Numerous Pundits have yet to be identified. To make any potential bias on my part clear, I tend to be pro-Hill, so my version might not be quite neutral. My belief, for what it's worth, is that Hill wasn't quite close enough to risk nipping inside there and should have held back, while Schumacher was travelling too slowly to really regard the corner as 'his' and should not have turned in. Both at fault, although Hill's error I regard as more honest.
Your trouble of course is in locating the appropriate quotes at the end to give the opposing interpretations. I'd be a bit wary of web references for this - has anyone got a decent hardcopy race report, or a book on Schumacher or Hill (Skully Collins has some on Hill, I think)? See WP:NPOV#Undue weight for the guidance on how to balance opposing views. Thedummy version given above assumes that the view is fairly evenly split, which may not be the case. --4u1e 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't be more unbiased than this: User:Serte/schumicontroversies. Say what you think about it. I wrote it as to replace the current controversy section which is too big and not NPOV at all.--Serte 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Damon Hill BBC Radio Five Live interview

Does anybody think any of this would be suitable (Hill's perspective):

Victoria Derbyshire: Damon, just remind us what happened between you and Schumacher in Australia.

Damon Hill: Em, well, we were racing, I didn’t, I wasn’t aware that Michael had actually gone off the road and damaged his car and so when I saw him coming back on the track I though he had just escaped again from another near spin. And so he was struggling to get up to speed and I went to overtake him and it’s pretty clear that he drove into me to prevent me from getting through and by virtue of that he won the world championship. But that was really sort the first big incident in his career but it sort of set the tone of his whole career really. Em, and what was slightly disappointing I think was that the, from time to time when things have happened it does appear that there has been slight favouritism towards those kind of, that kind of, or at least blind eyes turned to that kind of tactic.

Victoria Derbyshire: But did that show he was a cheat, or that he was desperate to win or he was just an extremely determined competitor and that’s what you need to be a world champion?

Damon Hill: Yeah, expect in Monaco this year it was concluded that he did actually do something deliberately to spoil the opportunity of Alonso to get to beat him to pole position, so he’s not only…, and there have been other incidents as well where the teams he’s been driving for have been had up for blatantly cheating, ignoring black flags, all those kind of things have been part of his career. Mark83 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheel to Wheel

We were looking for a reference for 'many people consider'. Alan Henry's book 'Wheel to Wheel' contains the following: "many F1 insiders regarded the German as solely responsible for the collision which resolved the outcome of the 1994 World Championship" (p. 117) --4u1e 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

English

Minor point: UK English or American English? We have both at present. I would vote for UK English, but technically we ought to check what was used in the first 'proper' version of the article and stick with that. 4u1e

The MOS states "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type" and British English is predominant. Also it's a European subject (both the man and effectively the sport). Mark83 14:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look at older versions and they appear to be UK as well, so let's take that as the standard. So - tire > tyre and all the other favourites. Cheers. 4u1e

Grammar

I am not surprised this is a FORMER featured article candidate, some of the sections arevery badly structured and the use of the word he is over used. there are common use of brackets in the article although some are necessary for translations should be completly avoided here is an example from he article.
The penalty (for overtaking Alex Wurz under safety car on lap 43 of 60) should have been issued within 25 minutes but Ferrari were informed 6 minutes after the limit had expired
In this example the reason the penalty was issued should be explained before this point and not put in brackets.
The word he is over used and should be replaced with Schumacher, also the use of his first name in the main body of he articl should be avoided.
The biggest problem with this article is sentence structure and grammar.
Here is an example
The move, embarrassing for F1 fans and media, was done after the very last corner of the last lap of the Austrian Grand Prix. This led to a public outcry by spectators in the grandstands;on the podium a visibly embarrassed and bewildered Schumacher ushered Barrichello onto the top step in an attempt to calm the irate crowd.
First major grammatical error is the use of the semi-colon it must not be used any-where in the article except the pronounciation at the very beginning. The phrase 'embarrassing for F1 fans and media' should be better structed and should not be a statement on its own. a better structure would be to remove it completly from the section. The podium setion is also poorly structured as it is written as if the person is Schumacher, we do not know what he was thinking or the complete reasons for the decision to swap places on the podium. The section should be written by saying things such as the aftermarth of swapping places was revealed to try to calm the crowd a citation of this would also be required.
These are just a few points to improve the article grmmar and structure are the main points but citations are lacking in some areas as well so more are required as well.--Lucy-marie 10:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We're working on a shortened and less POV version of the Controversy/Sportsmanship/Team Orders section at the moment, this will replace many of these problem areas. 4u1e 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy barring (correct) use of the semi colon except in first paragraphs! Mark83 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've been following this article from afar for a bit now, and I must say it has improved considerably over the last week or so. It reads less and less like fan journalism and more and more like an encyclopedia entry every day. Still has some way to go, but it's definitely better. Just my twopence'. --Ramdrake 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And it will be even better in the next few weeks I hope. At least I'm working hard on it.--Serte 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to disrupt your work, but one of the editors just changed the measurements of a sponsor logo from metric-only to US-first metric-second measurements. If you are adopting the UK style, shouldn't metric measurements at least come first? Just a thought.--Ramdrake 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I did change, but didn't remember of that. Anyway, I believe it's not the same thing. We're not adopting an UK style, I guess. We're just using UK English which is the European English. And the Europeam measures are cm, not inches. You may disagree. The best solution is to include the two types of measures.--Serte 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


For terms like championship, driver's championship, constructors' championship, should we use capital letters or not as there is no standardize way at the moment. If we want to go for FA, we should standardize it --Cyktsui 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to results table

Results table has recently been changed, but no longer matches the Key - could someone who knows more about the tables than I do confirm whether these changes match the WikiProject F1 standard? Cheers. 4u1e 16:07, 25 October 2006

There is a key?--Lucy-marie 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just above the table there's a link to click on. It's probably best to revert to the agreed colour scheme for the table, but possibly raise your ideas for changing the scheme at WP:F1.

I've also reverted your last change re 24 races etc (Sorry!). My logic is that the 24 races is an inclusive number up to the last race where you don't retire, i.e. Malaysia. What do you think? Cheers. 4u1e 16:14, 25 October 2006

ok thanks what do you think of the colour changes made to the grid?
I think that having it upto the malaysian gp implies he retired at the malaysian gp so saying brazil implies he retired at the brazilian gp. I also think that it is 23 not 24 races i may have miss counted though--Lucy-marie 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back againt because I agree with 4u1e. And I've counted several times and it is 24 races. The reason in which I believe Malaysia should be there is because what we're talking about is races in which he didn't retire. "Most consecutive race finished without retirement: 24 (from the 2001 Hungarian Grand Prix, until the 2003 Malaysian Grand Prix)" So, we should put Malaysia because that's the last race he finised without retiring. That's what I think.--Serte 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Err, how about using the word "including" (as in "until and including the 2003 Malaysian Grand Prix"? Slightly more cumbersome, but no chance for a misunderstanding there... Just a suggestion.--Ramdrake 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely 24 races (I counted three different ways and came up with the same result each time :-)). Hungary is race 1, Malaysia is race 24. The sentence involved is 'Most consecutive races finished without retirement: 24 races'.

Hungary to Malaysia are 'consecutive races finished without retirement'. Brazil cannot be included in that definition because he did retire there.

We could put 'inclusive' in the sentence if you feel it is really unclear that he did not retire in Malaysia (i.e. 'Hungary 2001 to Malaysia 2003 inclusive'), but I really don't think it's necessary. 4u1e 16:28, 25 October 2006 (I've been trying to get the above posted for the last few minutes, but you guys keep editing it!)

Shift results table to a template?

Removing the results table brings the article size down from 85 to 62 kilobytes. What about putting it in a template? That way it will not appear any differently but I think this would cut the article file size?? And if anybody listed it for deletion arguing it should be kept inside the article we could make the argument that it is a special circumstance (i.e. the amount of information on this page plus the fact that it's one of the largest driver results tables). Mark83 19:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A template for Complete F1 results could be a good thing, not only for this article but for all F1 drivers articles. However, I think you got to have very good skills at templates, which I don't. I know the basics only. However, the main thing that might complicate is that every year there are different schedules and such, so a template for this would still require everybody to put the races, the results, and such. Don't know about the colours though. Cheers--Serte 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. A generic results table would be almost impossible to write! I just mean copying and pasting the table into Template:Michael Schumacher career results (or similar) and then when you add {{Michael Schumacher career results}} in the right place on this article you get the full table but with a reduced article file size. Mark83 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I see now. I've made an experiment and it is quite simple to do it. Don't know if there wouldn't problems as you said in the beginning, don't know if there are special circunstances for these cases. If it's approved, I approve as well. Cheers--Serte 20:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher owns McLaren F1?

Someone in the McLaren F1 page left a comment stating Michael Schumacher has a McLaren F1. Does anyone know this for sure, or has a source for this information? -g8or8de 12:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember back in the 2004 (or 2005) Race of Champions when Schumacher could only driver the Ferrari and the Buggy, but not the Citreon Rally Car. The reason for this was that Fiat didn't allow him to drive them because he's under contract at Ferrari, who are Fiat owned. So to own a company that is a "rival" company to Ferrari is kinda farfetched (Sorry spelt wrong). But then again, Niki Lauda is one of the "big boys" (if you like) at Ford and didn't win a single championship (or even a point!) with a Ford engine, unless someone has a proper reference :-P. So personally, I wouldn't rule it out - but my head is saying "no".--Skully Collins 13:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
He means the car, not the formula one team :P
I don't think it would be that strange if he would, it's a bloody fast car, though I don't think he'd be showing it off very much because of his thing with Ferrari. JackSparrow Ninja 07:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sportsmanship

Is that part that in 2006 Monaco Grand Prix, Schumacher started at the back of the grid, but ended up finishing 5th relevant for sportsmanship?

The one reason that springs to mind is for the reader's interest and convenience, because I'm sure they'll ask how Schumacher did in the Grand Prix and will not want to scroll up/down to see how he did when it can be in the next sentance, although I do understand where your coming from with the question.--Skully Collins 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Schumacher is the first German to win F1 world championship. Jochen Rindt was Austrian.

Austrian nationality - but born in Germany (to German parents, I think?) -- Ian Dalziel 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Karl Jochen Rindt (April 18, 1942 - September 5, 1970) was an Austrian racing driver."
It doesn't matter where you're born, if you take Austrian nationality, you're an Austrian driver.
Formulaone.com also just lists him an Austrian. JackSparrow Ninja 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Has at last one German parent(possibly both). Had German citizenship. Born in Germany. Not sure you can get more German.Ernham 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe Rindt raced as an Austrian and should be classified as such. I know that in F1, you aren't "represnting a country", but if I am correct Rindt was badged as such. As you can see Nico Rosberg has a German mother and has the German flag on the side of his car, so I think he is racing as a German and if he becomes, WDC, should be classified as such and not Finnish as well. Are we talking "representation" or "passports" - If the former, then Rindt would only be listed once, under Austrian. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
But, you see, the comment is "the first German to...", it does not say the "first person to win X racing under the German flag" or something like that. It's incorrect to claim Schuamcher is the first German to win WDC; he wasn't.Ernham 09:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's why I changed it to "German national" a while back - "German" is ambiguous, saying "national" or "citizen" wouldn't be. -- Ian Dalziel 11:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

South African GP

The sentance reads that he's won nearly all the Grand Prixs he's started in, yes I know and agree with because of the Turkish GP. But, unless I'm mistaken, you reverted a correct statement that he didn't win the South African GP, and he's started that race twice! See 1992 South African Grand Prix and 1993 South African Grand Prix, so it is indeed, correct.--Skully Collins 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual sentence has a caveat in it that you seem to be missing, which i already told you to pay attention to.Ernham 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Don't know if anyone's aiming for Good Article or Featured Article ststus for this page, but if so you'll need to lose the trivia section, which is normally viewed as being 'un-encyclopaedic' by reviewers. Most of it could either be incorporated into the text or lost. The very first bullet would make an excellent way of addressing the 'greatest' issue by the way. Instead of trying to state that he is the greatest (unverifiable!) why not state in the lead that he was voted as such in a BBC poll, which is a verifiable statement? Just some suggestions, anyway.

I've seen numerous articles that have been featured around here with trivia sections. I think some of the things are interesting, yet they don't really have a place elsewhere IMO. You'd have to stuff 90% of it into the intro paragraphs.Ernham 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with reference section "a b c d e f"

All those cites are supposed to go to the official formula one website biography, instead the link back and forth between the refrence section and the spot they are cited. The actual source is missing, basically, but the linking works. http://www.formula1.com/archive/halloffame/driver/7.html that's the source.Ernham 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Mark83 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.Ernham 20:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

possibly gutting the second intro paragraph

This one: "Schumacher currently holds almost every record in Formula One, including those for most drivers' championships, race victories, fastest laps, pole positions, and most races won in a single season. He is the first Formula One driver to win at every track he has started on at least once, starting from his first world championship title year(excluding the recently introduced Turkish GP). He is the world's first billionaire athlete, with an estimated yearly salary over 100 million dollars, tens of millions of which he donates to humanitarian causes.[1]" Particularly the first two-thirds of it. Instead, adding "see below link" after the "holds almost every record" comment. i think it's excessive, given we have a whole section devoted to summarizing many of those records. No need to dwell on it. Then add some more stuff to the intro found in the trivia section perhaps. Just discussing it now, I don't hvae time to do muhc at the moment. Thoughts? Ernham 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I think the fact that he holds the Championships, wins and poles records is very significant and deserves to be mentioned in the intro. These are probably the three major records in F1. I agree that the "most victories in a season" and "win at every track he has started on at least once" should be removed as they are 'lower-level' records and you could easily substitute them for several others that he holds. Most fastest laps could be kept, but it just makes the sentence longer. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. That's probably what I started with in the first version of this lead, but it's one of those sections people like to add to! 4u1e 13:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Going for FA

After the end of the championship, I believe we should review and work a lot on this article and try to make it a FA. We have the example of Damon Hill, who's also a (former) Formula 1 driver and it's a FA now. I have some ideas.

  1. - The article is too long, almost 100 kb now. We have to reduce some parts, for example the 2006 season.
  2. - The most recent seasons, specially the 2006 are too large when compared to others. That needs to be reduced and all seasons should have more or less the same space.
  3. - search for more and more references
  4. - find old images we can use, such as the cars he drove in the 90's and pictures of him from those times and younger.
  5. - Get the Attributes section better: finding references and re-writing it, maybe.
  6. - find a reference for the BBC poll referred at the Trivia section. It may be useful to stop the controversy in the lead about him being the greatest or the best.
  7. - although the Retirement section is cool, it is big, so maybe reducing it, or creating another article for it and just leave a few people responses wouldn't be bad.

Add more ideas, discuss these and let's prepare to work? --Serte 12:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of what Serte says above. Can I also suggest that you step up gradually. With Damon Hill we found it useful to go through Good Article and Peer Review first to get a good number of views. 4u1e 12:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the WP:GA process takes a while, why not nominate it now? (After reading the criteria first, of course!) 4u1e 13:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling that if Michael wins the championship (looking very likely at the moment), this article will get hit massively for a couple of weeks after the end of the season. Some improvements can be made now, but I think we should wait until about a month or two after the end of the season to nominate it for FA - one of the criteria is that the article is stable. An attempt at GA would be fine for now though IMO. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe also we should wait until the end of the championship, as I said above. Let's check the GA criteria list.--Serte 13:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The season ended today, so, I guess today is a new beginning for this article and we should all work together and try to get this article an FA. I really think it won't be much work, I think that my ideas above are the main things to do and then only a few minor touch-ups would be needed, I guess.--Serte 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest also that the trivia section should go (which will help with the excessive length) and that a lot of work on NPOV will be needed. Still up for trying GA first? --4u1e 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, why not. And Peer review at the same time to help?--Serte 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to keep them seperate - take it slow and aim to get the article to FA by January time, which should be well after all the casual editors lose interest in the topic. On the other hand, I don't think it would do any harm to Peer Review it now, so if you want to list it at WP:PR, go ahead. I'll have a stab at a dummy GA assessment later today to give us a feel for where we stand on that. Cheers. 4u1e 23 October 2006

In Peer Review! See Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Schumacher/archive2--Serte 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

93 technology

The current words suggest that benetton did not have active suspension, automatic gearbox etc in 1993. While this was true in 1992, in 93 my recollection is that Benetton had as much technology as anyone else in the pitlane - even including four wheel steer. I will try to find a ref, but I believe the current words are wrong. 4u1e 12:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made this comment before as well. The current wording is misleading.

OK, ref found here: [3]. I have cut off the end of the relevant sentence, leaving the contention that the Benetton was inferior, but removing the implication that it did not have the 'whistles and bells' employed by Williams and McLaren. 4u1e (sorry - can't sign in!)

I think the same argument will also be found to apply to the traction and launch control that have been added - apart from anything else, their appearance in Benetton's software in 1994 when illegal (whether used or not!) would be really weird if they weren't used in 1993! Anyway,I'll look for more references. --4u1e 06:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more weird if they used, for instance, traction control in '93 when they didn'thave traction control in '93. THAT would be, uhh, odd... Ernham 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We'll see whether I can turn anything up to support my recollection from the time, which is that they (along with most others at the front of the grid) did have it. But there's not much point in basing this on my recollections is there? :-) I'll edit appropriately and post back here if I find anything. Cheers. 4u1e 16 October about 9:30.
You will find little more than misinformation on the net, where people don't even seem to understand the difference between traction control and launch control. Benetton didn't even start working on traction/launch control until the end of '93, let alone have a working race model. Contrary to your claim above as well, they only found start sequence software on the benetton cars, no traction control.Ernham 08:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Found some evidence of Benetton's "Gizmos" in the book, "The Unofficial Complete Encyclopedia of Formula One", although it says unofficial, it does provide a comprehensive coverage of Formula One. Anyway, on page 77, it says the following:
"In some cars, notably the Benetton B193, this system (Traction Control) was combined with an automatic 'launch control' system; the driver just pressed a button to 'arm' the system, then when the lights changed and the car would automatically make an optimum getaway. The Benetton also featured four-wheel steer..."
The rest of the page goes onto to discuss Williams' ABS system and McLaren's prototype system that changes the wing's Angle of Attack while it is on track. I'll also try and look through Derek Allsop's book, "Designs on Victory", tonight and see if I can find find specific dates and Grand Prixs when Benetton used TC and LC.--Skully Collins 10:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what to tell ya. They hired what's-his-face(has an eastern european sounding name -ski)sounding last name to work on developing traction and launch control for them. Towards the end of the '93 season they were testing with a model that had launch control, but not traction control.Ernham 10:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
But why would they bother testing at the end of 1993 when they were banned for 1994? Does anyone know when the ban on electronic aids for 1994 was announced - if it was late in the year it might explain it. Let's go with the evidence though. Cheers. 4u1e.
They banned traction control and active suspension first. They were declared illegal in middle of the 1993 season if i recall right. But there were court battles and whatnot and they didn't "truly" get banned until later. Ernham 11:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Allowing for the shortfalls of the internet ;-), see this forum page from AtlasF1 (frequented by a pretty knowledgeable crowd, including a few published authors and people from the Industry): [4] (see post 27 on the first page). The conversation wasn't centered around Schumacher, but the incidental stuff indicates that probably Benetton didn't have TC at the start of the year in races, but did by the end. This is of course not evidence and ultimately is no more use in referencing this part than my, Skully's or Ernham's recollections - it's a useful pointer to what the answer might be though. If correct, it also leaves the question of when in the year it was introduced, which requires a solid ref to back it up.

The suggested timing also matches with the info from this bio of Tad Czapski - I assume this is the guy you were thinking of Ernham? Pretty good recollection, if so! It says Czapski (great name!) was hired in Autumn of 1992 "to work on Benetton's advanced electronics systems which included active suspension, automatic gearboxes, ABS and traction control. He was responsible for control systems in the Benetton-Ford B193 transmission." - certainly possible that it was introduced sometime during 1993 on that basis. Annoyingly the bio is ambiguous about whether the technology was actually used on the race cars, though. 4u1e. 16 October 12:30 ish.

Ya, that's the guy. The name always stuck me because you had a French chief, a German driver, and what sounded like a Polish engineer. Seemed like the begnning of a joke or something. They were actively developing traction and launch control during the 1993, but after FIA announced that they were being banned in the middle of 1993, I doubt they were very vigorous in their research. I know Briatore later said in ad hoc interview that "We didn't--ever-- race with traction control". He answered that when someoen questioned him about allegations of using traction control in 1994, a year later. Then again, he is kind of a fruitcake.Ernham 12:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree with you about Briatore! I'm pretty sure they did use it during the season - but I haven't got any evidence worth the name yet, although the stuff Skully turned up looks interesting. I won't be making any changes until I do. Cheers. 4u1e
the reasons I think that it is unlikely they had it at all or any significant portion of ths season:
  • Briatore has said so.
  • It was clear at least in donnington park Schumacher definitely did not have traction control.(if you can find this video with the sound, you can clearly hear the difference between vehicles that had traction control and those that did not.)
  • Schumacher beat Senna in 1992 using a completely inferior car, yet in 1993 Senna beat Schumacher when senna only clearly had the advantage the last half of the season, though it's debtable if he had the advantage the first half as well.
  • The 1992 benetton had next to no frills and it seems unlikely that in such a short time they would make great progress in active suspension, Traction control, launch control, and semi-automatic gear box. They just didn't have the resources IMO.
  • It was canada(before donnington park) where it seemed like the future of traction control was doomed; why would they waste their reasources to continue developing it when it was clear it would soon be banned?


  • Yes, but we don't have the context of Briatore's words - was this in the late 1990s, when another row about traction control blew up?

>> Nah. This is was a couple years after schuamcher left benneton and they were in the depths of a major slump.

  • wouldn't that be 1997 and therefore late 1990s-ish? :)
  • Fair enough, but that was the 3rd race of the season, so plenty of time for it to have been introduced.

>> Was it really? Hmm. I don't remember dates but i always recalled the Brtish GP being in july-ish.

  • I don't have a review of the 1992 season to hand, so I'll accept this one for now.

>> Yep. The williams vehicles were far better than everyone elses, however.

  • Fairly massive injection of technical resources from TWR at around that time.

>> TWR? Those are huge leaps for a single year, man...

  • TWR = Tom Walkinshaw Racing. It was a global motorsports empire, most notable for running Jaguar's sportscar campaign at Le Mans and in the WSC, but also Australian V8 Touring Cars, British Touring Cars and general motorsports consultancy. It represents a pretty big improvement in the technical resources available. Went bust along with the rest of Tom Walkinshaw's investments when the Arrows F1 team that he later owned went bankrupt. 4u1e.

Ernham 16:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that evidence is the thing, though! Cheers. 4u1e

Early 1990s appears to be a difficult time to get info for in F1! Finally found a race report at grandprix.com - a reputable source. See here. Turns out the Benetton traction control was introduced at the 1993 Monaco Grand Prix, which is consistent with the other references given above, and was a race before the Canadian GP where the FIA suddenly announced that it was illegal. There was still half to two thirds of the season to run, so plenty of incentive to keep developing it, which would explain why the book Skully ref'd above mentions the technology on the B193. On that basis I'm editing the article to read something like: "Despite not having the technology in the early part of the season". Cheers. 4u1e 18 October. Lunchtime.

Turkey

I guess I need the following explaining to me, because I think it contradicts itself, and I think it needs deleting:

He is the first Formula One driver to win at every track he has started on at least once, starting from his first world championship title year (excluding the recently introduced Turkish GP).

He hasn't won the Turkish GP, and thus hasn't won every track he's started on. Apathetic 07:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He was won all, EXCEPT X. It's a common thing to say, you may see it as a contradiction and technically it is, but people use it on everyday situations and I don't really tink it's a problem. --Serte 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it rather a convoluted record though? He's won on every track except Turkey and Kyalami, Mexico City, and Donington (latter 3 all pre 1994)? Also it seems odd to set the time period to 1994 - 2006 (i.e. since his first championship), but include Estoril, where he hasn't won since 1993, outside the period in question. For my money it's there are too many caveats on this for it to be valid - what do others think? 195.137.77.175 07:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops - that was me, got logged out and didn't notice. 4u1e 07:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It definitely needs to be reworded. It's fine to emphasise how many tracks he's won races on, but I think "the first driver to..." has to go, because you could use the "except XYZ" to include anyone else you wanted in the record. Apathetic 07:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one's objected. I've deleted the sentence. I could have replaced it with something like "Has won on the majority of circuits that he has competed on", but thought that rather weak, and anyway I think I saw a comment round here somewhere that there were too many records mentioned in the lead. Just to reiterate the logic - too many caveats in the statement to say 'is the first to...'. The caveats are 1. since winning the drivers championship, 2. except Turkey,which is recent and 3. except Estoril, where he has raced, but not won since winning the drivers championship. --4u1e 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also checked out out Fangio's record - one could say of him that he " won on every race track he started, except Pescara (only ever used once) and Aintree (where two of the British GPs during Fangio's career were held)". Very similar, but even less caveated, so one really cannot say that Schumacher was the first to achieve a similar feat. I suspect Alberto Ascari must have a achieved something similar as well, he went on a great winning streak in 1952-53. Cheers. --4u1e 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai 2006

Adding this, since there seems to be so much misinformation and speculation being spread in these sections, as well as complete NPOV nonsense, even from a mod?? Crazy. Discuss any substantive changes you thik need to occur to the sections here firstErnham 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My changes
  • Only Schumacher, reaffirming his title of the Rainmaster, would be able to put up a fight for pole position against the Michelin using team
How does editorialising about hyperbolic titles like "Rainmaster" count as NPOV? That's why I removed it. The note that Michelin had better tyres is noted, I have simply condensed sentences to tell you the same thing
  • "sunny" Shanghai - where did I state that? The race was wet, as is noted in the article - the drivers started on intermediate wets and as the race progressed, the track dried and the drivers ended the race on dry tyres.
  • I made the note about Alonso losing 3s per lap during the middle phase because that is what happened, after he switched tyres. How else does a car slow down by 3s, and when it rechanges tyres, it speeds up again (It wasn't a wing change or other fixes that were done). Every news outlet has noted this
  • I removed the part about the drivers supposedly blocking the whole track from the preceding edit because the track is at least 5-6 cars wide and one can't block the whole track.
  • The comment that Schumacher was the only Bridgestone car in the top 10 was removed because it implies give the impression that the rest of the Bridgestone cars dropped out of the top 10 because of tyres but Schumacher stayed in the top 10 due to sheer skill - Toyota and Williams are the other non-minnow bridgestone teams and they have been out of the top ten for the whole year.
  • I deleted the reference to Massa as he too started from way back and began to drive quickly and pass cars when Schumacher was doing the same. The old sentence implies that Schumacher was routing everybody whilst Massa was nowhere - if we note Massa's lesser skill everywhere, perhaps we should also note how many times Fisichella goes off the track and editorialise so that everybody sees that Alonso is better than Fisi?
  • Schumacher was 20-25s behind after passing the Hondas and Raikkonen had a breakdown.
  • How do we know that Schumacher was driving conservatively?
If he did say this, feel free to put back in.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

you have totally misrepresented reality. Massa was hardly doing anything that whole race. I think he actually lost a place, not counting retirements. I will clip everything over here and tell you what is wrong about it when i have time. However, for now i wanted to give a general apology to all involved as to someone altering the old edits. what happened was that the guy just below you added a lot of those things, such as "sunny" race condtions, and when I was trying to track them down, for some reason it looked like you had done it. Also, the paragraph was dramatically altered, so when I looked for where i expected it to be in yours, I didn't see it at first glance.Ernham 05:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

>>my comment

  • Only Schumacher, reaffirming his title of the Rainmaster, would be able to put up a fight for pole position against the Michelin using team
How does editorialising about hyperbolic titles like "Rainmaster" count as NPOV? That's why I removed it. The note that Michelin had better tyres is noted, I have simply condensed sentences to tell you the same thing

>>Is he called the "rainmaster"? Yes. Note that in the intro this is talked about, yet the article doesn't have too many demonstrations of why he earned it, so i thought it was a good idea to bring it back up. Did he perform incredibly well under wet conditions? yes he did. I don't see too much POV there, but I **could** see removing it and then demonstrating how well he did by facts. Gee, as a matter of fact, I DID JUST THAT-- you deleted it. (see below)

  • "sunny" Shanghai - where did I state that? The race was wet, as is noted in the article - the drivers started on intermediate wets and as the race progressed, the track dried and the drivers ended the race on dry tyres.

>>This was a mistake; it was the guy below you in the edit history. Sorry. You dind't add that.

  • I made the note about Alonso losing 3s per lap during the middle phase because that is what happened, after he switched tyres. How else does a car slow down by 3s, and when it rechanges tyres, it speeds up again (It wasn't a wing change or other fixes that were done). Every news outlet has noted this.

>>Was Alonso losing time or were other people gaining time in relation to current track conditions? Clearly you take a POV stance. The point is, however, you deleted an important section of qualifying, yet you add this. And what is this? PURE SPECULATION. You remove pure facts that apparently you dind't "like", for pure speculation you apparently "liked". Sure, it seems like the case it was his tires, but you don't KNOW that; you speculate. He said in the press conference that it was NOT A MISTAKE TO changed tires. Sure, they slowed him down, but he said he HAD to change tires. Why? Because one side was completely bald! Why were they bald? Because he was racing so aggresively the first 12 laps! His teamate didn't have to change, why? His tires weren't balding! He was slowing down the field to supposrt Alonso! Hello? Alonso's mistake was driving too aggresively, and he is well known for being to hard on his tires.

  • I removed the part about the drivers supposedly blocking the whole track from the preceding edit because the track is at least 5-6 cars wide and one can't block the whole track.

>>Yes, you can essentially block the whole or almost the whole track, unless you risk smashing into someone on the next corner. you could have changed the wording a little bit, mentioning their unorthodox blocking method to some degree. Instead you compeltely delete it. gee, go figure.

  • The comment that Schumacher was the only Bridgestone car in the top 10 was removed because it implies give the impression that the rest of the Bridgestone cars dropped out of the top 10 because of tyres but Schumacher stayed in the top 10 due to sheer skill - Toyota and Williams are the other non-minnow bridgestone teams and they have been out of the top ten for the whole year.

>>Top 12, top 12 cars. THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE MASSA COMPARSSION WAS GIVEN! He has essentially the same car/support/etc. No if ands or buts there. He is a perfect xomparisson for schumacher because of that. It was SHOWING how well Schumacher did given the circumstances he was in(and are you saying the "minnows" disproporionately use bridgestones??), see above if you have forgotten about "point one" above. This is total nonsense.

  • I deleted the reference to Massa as he too started from way back and began to drive quickly and pass cars when Schumacher was doing the same. The old sentence implies that Schumacher was routing everybody whilst Massa was nowhere - if we note Massa's lesser skill everywhere, perhaps we should also note how many times Fisichella goes off the track and editorialise so that everybody sees that Alonso is better than Fisi?

>>No he didn't. Massa did next to nothing in that race, even after their was a dry racing line about 2/3s into the race. He kept spinning out and going off the track on the corners, all the way up to his retirement. did you even watch it?

  • Schumacher was 20-25s behind after passing the Hondas and Raikkonen had a breakdown.

>>Umm, that's not what I recall. I don't recall him being aided by any retirements. And when he was finally in 3rd, the lead was about 8 seconds from him.

  • How do we know that Schumacher was driving conservatively?

>>Maybe because it was obvious? Maybe because the commentators(at least the ones here) all noted such? Maybe--mostly just maybe-- because in the press conference he said PRECISELY THAT if you bothered to watch it! He didn't say conservatively, but he said "Taking it easy". >>Ernham 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no hard feelings about the vandalism incident
I did watch that race. Here's a report [5]. Massa had an engine change and was forced to start last. By the end of the race (when he was involved in the collision) he was battling for 9th and had passed the Williams, Toyotas, and was on the back of Honda and Coulthard and maybe 5s behind the BMW etc. So the prior comment gives an impression that he only did crashes/spins all day. His pace was not too bad, Martin Brundle noted that in the middle phase he also was getting close to the pace of the front three. Yes he also did a spin, but Fisi also did a spin in the last part of the race and lost 15s whilst Alonso did not. I personally feel that the comparison to Massa was particular obtrusive - it's true that Schumacher was the best that day but the amount of info added there gives me the impression that he was overdoing. I also note that in the Alonso article we don't note how far he is in front of Fisi. eg he was perhaps 40s ahead on the same car in Hungary despite starting in front and then Fisi crashed. I do think that the hammering out of Massa's relative lack of performance is somewhat excessive - we don't note the reverse in Turkey where Schumacher didn't keep pace after the first stop, or in the case of Alonso we don't harp on and on about how far he leaves Fisi behind.
As for the tyre changing thing, that's fine, I didn't get the part after the race as they were running late for the news and cut it off. The article will tell you that Raikkonen jumnped Fisi and then retired after, with Schu in 4 and Kimi in 2. For the blocking thing, did you mean the part where Fisi pulled side by side and they didn't pass? - That's true that they did that, but then Fisi drove straight past him and so did Schumacher, so I think it is irrelevant, as Schumacher didn't pass a double wall. The rainmaster thing is still hyperbole - we don't say - "the hat-trick proved that xxxxx is the golden boot" - that is unencyclopedic. Feel free to note that he did a very good job to minimise his losses in adverse conditions - I thought I already noted that with the Michelin superiority. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Suzuka 2006

Adding this, since there seems to be so much misinformation and speculation being spread in these sections, as well as complete NPOV nonsense, even from a mod?? Crazy. Discuss any substantive changes you thik need to occur to the sections here first.Ernham 03:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ernham, I highly suggest you read up on WP:NPOV and vandalism before you make the edits/summaries that you have here. Your edit and summary are intirely inappropriate, as is this post. Wikipedia is not for narratives of seasons, but encyclopedic entries. Blnguyen's edits were paring down your POV editing. We welcome that you continue to contribute, but I have to revert the edit to the NPOV version before you wrote it. Don't continue the edit war, and that is final. Teke (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedic is cutting out the fact that Schumacher was the only bridgestone user to qualify in the the top 12, yet adding an entire paragraph speculating about alonso's tyres, lieing about the race conditions? And the Wiki is about WHO, again? Not Alonso. Now you tell me what that says about his edits.Ernham 04:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a forum for sports talk akin to the radio. I don't think you are right or wrong in your personal assesment of the race. You edit was inappropriate and filled with POV and words to avoid; the ones prior may be leaning POV, but your edit is definitively pro-Schumacher If the editing of a section on accomplishments is of such contention, remove it and hash it out at another time and not in the article space. I'm asking that you calm down (I've the experience to sight when a user is getting hot under the coller) and remember that this can be worked out with time. Continued pushing will result in a block based on the three revert rule, which exists to calms these fires. Teke (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As per the rules, reverting vandalism and slander does not count in the revert total. It was claimed that the racing conditions were sunny. Oh really, that's why it RAINED AGAIN during the race? You ever heard your weather man say "It's going to be sunny with rain this morning"? Nah, thought not. An as said, deleting important information regarding schuamcher, FACTUAL information mind you(qualifying result), and adding several sentences speculating about ALONSO's tyres? Ernham 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ernham, chill out. Your rhetoric is not working, what with the rhetorical questions and assuming bad faith in my answers. You are talking about a single controversy, not the grand picture of the article. This is my last nice plea that you have the sober realization that this is, in fact, a lame edit war to have. Tires and rain for a singular race will in no way diminish Schumacher as one of the greatest Formula 1 drivers ever (and I know of him, even though I don't follow Formula 1). Let it go now, take a few days off, or the adminhat gets put on and you are forced a few days off. It's not a threat, it's an option to you. Blnguyen won't be warring over it if you won't, even your edit summaries are hostile. Take a time out. Teke (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm hostile because I have to put up with 24-7 vandalism/slander, and when it comes ditectly from an admin, that's just ridiculous. It's fine you don't plan to reply, don't consider this or my following two posts in this section and the one above, either, but I'm going to through the original version of what was the verion Binguyen was trying to to pass off as reality, under the pretences of cleaning up NPOV no less. I urge you to read them, however. Ernham 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I smell abuse of admin powers. Binguyen had written that the Shangai race track had "sunny" conditions. Now that edit curiously no longer mentions this complete fabritcation, and instead it says what I had written there; someone edited the edit without leaving an edit stamp. This seems an outragous abuse of admin powers. Ernham 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, let me tell you that admin abilities are only three extra functions: delete, protect, and block. Edit summaries cannot be changed as they are vital to the GFDL; not even developers can remove or change them. Oversight can hide libelous or copyright violations, but it is not possible that the edit changed.
Now, if you have contentions with a section, and encounter such conlfict, remove the section and use a summary along the line of "Let's take this to the talk page." The disputes only harm Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Blnguyen or yourself has it right of wrong, your edit summaries and hostility do not build the project. Also note that edits made by administrators are not usually admin actions; while we are the "official face of Wikipedia" we are editors too. Look at the summaries, and you will see the difference in tones taken by Blnguyen and yourself:
  1. (cur) (last) 03:46, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (Reverted vandalism. You are clipping out huge chucks for no reason. You lie, calling Shanghai "sunny" and speculate all over. Change the tense, nothing else. Use the talk page.)
  2. (cur) (last) 03:30, 9 October 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) (I'm not lying and I'm not vandalising - some of the stuff needs to be cahnged for tense as it is now in the past)
  3. (cur) (last) 03:09, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (Revert massive vandalism/total lies/complete NPOV non-sense. No more substantive changes to china/japan until you take it to talk page)
  4. (cur) (last) 02:58, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (→1991-1993 - getting quite sick of the vandals.)
  5. (cur) (last) 02:25, 9 October 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) (→2006 - NPOVised, engine failures usually sudden, minimised stuff about other drivers, rm stuff about BSTONE wets, as Toyota is very poor car -invald comparison,CHina pass very easy LOL)
  6. (cur) (last) 02:11, 9 October 2006 220.237.166.222 (Talk | block) (→2006)
  7. (cur) (last) 02:03, 9 October 2006 60.240.81.55 (Talk | block) (→Sportsmanship)
  8. (cur) (last) 01:39, 9 October 2006 Patstuart (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by 201.129.83.154 to last version by 201.41.243.253)
  9. (cur) (last) 01:37, 9 October 2006 201.129.83.154 (Talk | block)
  10. (cur) (last) 23:56, 8 October 2006 201.41.243.253 (Talk | block)
  11. (cur) (last) 22:49, 8 October 2006 GregorB (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Team orders)
  12. (cur) (last) 21:28, 8 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) m
Blnguyen was trying to clean up the aritcle and didn't mean any disfavor to you in particular, your edit was a couple below IP contributions that also were edited. I'm off to bed, I do hope you see my point on your approach and that y'all will resolve the conflict peacefully. Teke (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said, someone EDITED an edit, and it did not leave an edit stamp(those things you listed above I'm referring to as edit stamps), so posting those does nothing. As far as I know, regular users cannot do that, and it's not just the "sunny" part that is missing. Other sentences/words were also curiously replaced on the old edits.Ernham 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When did I insert the word "sunny" into Shanghai? Can you substantiate your allegations? [6] nothing has been deleted/censored from the Schumacher article. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I've been working here and there, giving sugestions on this article to make it FA, checking it, but I don't know what happened. Is is just me, or the 2006 section isn't NPOV at all right now? And why delete valid references just as those for the formula1.com when you can leave it there? I don't know what happened but this is definately not a step forward no Featured Article status...--Serte 18:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention it (the 2006 section) is way too long. SubSeven 19:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trimming down the 2006 section

I'm going to try to significantly trim this down to a approximately 4-5, maybe a little more on races that had controversial events, sentences per race, as opposed to the current, which ranges from 4-5 to 50+ sentences. Heh. If you don't like that I gutted/changed something, post exactly what was removed and why you think it deserves to be incorporated in the article. The section should be written in relation to schumacher. Outstanding, good or bad, events should be noted if they directly relate to Schumacher, but not overly dwelt on. So post exactly what was removed and your arguments for why it should be included, keeping in mind space is at a premium.Ernham 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm going to hold off until the GP is over, as the results could significantly impact the summary-type statements of the entire season.Ernham 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of a section on anti-schumacher propaganda/reporting

The incredibly anti-schumacher attacks that are continuously vomited up en masse by significant portions of the English media is disturbing both to me as a forumla one fan and doubly disturbing to me as a citizen of the world when I hear this coming from public scources, such as the BBC. This venomous assault on Schumacher has been noted by other journalists as well, and I think a section covering this unique phenomenon is rather appropriate given the commonality and magnitude of this assault throughout schumachers soon-to-be ending career. More often than not, Schumacher is called "the German", and I've yet to hear a single English broadcaster actually pronounce his name right, yet the English commentators elsewhere go to great lenghts to pronounce even extremely odd Africa names correctly in the case footballers and the like. The stereotypical article such as these usually includes jingoism, grotesque pictures/caricatures of schumacher making some kind of non-normal facial experession, hypocrisy, and what seems to be outright ignorance of facts/reality of a given situation. A motor sports>commentator/journalist summed it up pretty well:

"I am beginning to understand the primary reason for all the sad Schumacher bashing that hits the press and online media. Michael Schumacher is not English and he certainly does not drive for an English team and for a sport that has its heart in England, it looks unlikely that he will ever be a complete hero with the men who wield their pen more often than the German wield's his steering wheel.

It is a pity that more and more viewers and people all over the world listen and read about how Schumy is hesitant to go on a all out battle with other drivers on the track rather than in the pit lane. The commentators are all English, the authors are all English; it is as if to say that one needs an Italian writer to get some credible story on the stunning performances that Ferrari and its ace driver have put in this year." [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernham (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I totally disagree. And from what I have found the author of the above quote ("I am beginning to understand....") is not a motorsport commentator but a blogger! I was astounded to read that you have chosen to highlight the BBC as a producer of "vomitous" anti-Schumacher attacks. Here are the first BBC stories about Schumacher from 2006, 2005 and 2004. I challenge you to find any "vomit" or "non-normal facial experession":
I'm not going to deny that there are not some idiotic commentators out there, however it is equally, I'm sorry, idiotic to label all English-speaking commentators as xenophobic/jinogistic or blindly anti-Schumacher. You seem to be coming from a position that Schumacher is a flawless character! However any balanced description of the man has to take into account that although a brilliant driver capable of astonishing speed, he has flaws. Call them misjudgements, lack of sportsmanship, whatever - to leave them out of articles would be to provide an incomplete analysis of his career.
You really could have picked a better article to make your point. The article you have chosen is a disgrace. It says "it is as if to say that one needs an Italian writer to get some credible story on the stunning performances that Ferrari and its ace driver have put in this year". Every ITV race report from ITV has been very complimentary. Also see a summary of his 10 best wins from from ITV, "When Michael Schumacher gets out of his Ferrari for the final time at the Brazilian Grand Prix on October 22 it will bring the curtain down on a record-breaking career that has seen him rack up an astonishing seven world titles and 90 wins (so far!). " [8]
Also please be careful when using the term "English". While undoubtedly most F1 commentators based in the UK are likely to be based in England, that doesn't necessarily mean they are English. British and English are two distinct terms. Mark83 09:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Spare me. I can read. And i read nothing but trash and hear little but trash from the British press, and it has been that way since approximately '94. Read the new "tainted legacy" where complain that people like senna were greater champions because Schumcahcer was invovled in some incidents, but it's like they never saw senna race at all. Senna was involved in just as many controversial and incredibly dangerous situations/incidents as schumacher, and he was only in F-1 for almost HALF THE TIME Schumacher was. Even in '94, I remember schumacher saying in an interview that he "might not even have to fight over second place". He was referring to Senna's incredibly dangerous driving and his crazy belief that god protected him on the race track. In any event, Senna was crazy and invovled in far more controvesial incidents if you correct for years involved in forumla. And that was written by a formula 1/motorsport journalist from http://sify.com/sports/drive/. Look like a blog to you, Holmes? Hobbs, who is English himself but lives in the united states now has repeatedly said the same thing in the past. I'm aware of at least 2 other journalists/commentators that believe the same. It's a common realization for those of use that have watched f-1 since the days of Senna and earlier that the "rules of the press" are quite difference for Schumacher than anyone else. Ernham 12:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Michael, as a person, is consistently misrepresented in the worst sections of the British press, and I agree that nothing he has ever done on track approaches the enormity of some of Senna's unpunished exploits. I don't, however, think that those facts justify trying to make him appear blameless, or glossing over the controversies in his career. Nor, of course, does Ayrton's death justify an attempt to beatify him. -- Ian Dalziel 12:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I never insinuated that major incidents be somehow made to make Schumacher appear blameless. The reality is that we can only speculate on to the degree of Schumacher's faults for the incidents we have seen. The section I'm talking about would be more along the lines of a "the price of being a champion", and briefly outline some of the facts of the matter. There may be very basic reasons for the bad press. For one, given the fact he has finished on the podium in, what, about 75% of the races he's been in? A lot, basically. And we know that these incidents that occur in F-1 always happened and they continue to happen and they happen to **everyone**. The fact that he is almost always in the top 3 vying for the win and championship at the end of the year greatly increases the chance that his "incidents" will involve on of the other top drivers, and such an incident can always be portrayed as an attemp to take out that rival, when in fact it was just a bad day for both drivers. Statistically, it was their "turn" for an incident. Then the media hams it up, basically. i'm not sure, though, but I know what i hear and read, and it rarely matches up with reality when it comes from the British press in combination with Schumacher.Ernham 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I buy "everyone". I can't think of a controversial incident involving Stirling Moss, and the only controversy involving Jim Clark was about the final accident of "Taffy" von Trips. As far as I can see, Clark was blameless, but no doubt you'll disagree - and we're not going to find that one on YouTube. I think Senna changed the attitude to ruthless professionalism, and I think Michael carried on with the principle that anything that doesn't have a rule against it is acceptable. I wouldn't demonise either driver, but I think Wikipedia should give due weight to the controversial incidents. -- Ian Dalziel 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mean since "all time". Geez. Surely there are also people that only ever raced once or twice as well, going to include them too? No. I meant realistically, in the modern era of F1, which started about the time Prost started in F1, then, yes, everyone that's been around for awhile is going to get into any number if incidents.
Within your constraints, and off the top of my head - tell me about any allegations against Gerhard Berger, Thierry Boutsen, Jean Alesi or Heinz-Harald Frenzen? -- Ian Dalziel 11:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't recall any late race incidents involving Berger off hand, but I do recall early collisions with both Senna and Andretti. Boutsen smashed into Comas. Alesi? You gotta be kidding me. He had half a dozen. Heinz? Crashed into Tulli and Margiritos.I'm sure at least some of them have been invovled in more then just what pops into my mind after 5 minutes of contemplating it.

As for blogger vs. commentator; The quote you gave seems to be from here [9] by Vinesh V Nair, who is described elsewhere as a blogger. I repeat that it is one of the worst pieces of journalism I've read in a long time. He talks about the savaging Schumacher gets in the British press yet fails to give even a single example. Ernham, spare you? Spare you what? The proof that what you said about the BBC is wrong? I assume you're talking about tabloid press, in which case can I give you some advice? You're looking in the wrong place for intelligent commentary of F1. If you want to read British analysis of F1 please stick to F1 Racing or the excellent coverage in most of the quality papers. Mark83 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there some law I'm not aware of that states a blogger and a journalist/commentator are mutually exclusive? Also, do you consider the BBC a rag? The Guardian? Ernham 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No, but journalist/commentator suggests some kind of training or experience. Anyone can be a blogger and anyone could write a better piece than the one you referenced. And no, every word I have written here is defending the BBC. You are the one who wrote "attacks that are continuously vomited up en masse by.... public scources, such as the BBC." I would appreciated if you withdrew what you said about the BBC or gave a reference to some "vomit" it has written about Schumacher. And I consider The Guardian a quality paper, I suggested you avoid tabloid press. Mark83 15:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In order to withdraw such, I would need a time machine and a surgeon willing to remove my ears, eyes, and possibly even fingers for fear i might learn to read braile. The first time I recall thinking there is much more going on here than jealous or fair criticism of balls-to-the-wall champion i was watching a GP that had two commentators , both of which were English. In the early going of the race, a guy in a slower car was weaving to keep schumacher from passing him(the commentators did not mention he was weaving, interestingly) At one point, schumacher tries passing on a straight and looked like he was going to pull it off, at which point the other driver chopped him, nearly causing him to veer off into some grass in order to miss the collision. One of the commentators said, " Oh dear, what was (the name of the driver that chopped schumacher) thinking there. He nearly..." And then the other commentator cut him off with, "I know exactly what he was thinking: you aren't passing me, you arrogant little kraut." I got this in the united states, so this was an international broadcast.Ernham 16:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That couldn't have been a BBC commentary and it is the BBC you accused of producing attacks, so you should have no problem of withdrawing your comments about the BBC. I say it couldn't have been a BBC commentary because they only produce commentary for BBC Five Live, and you couldn't watch a radio commentary. I also refuse to believe that any ITV commentator would use the term "kraut". We seem to be going circles, if you want to add something about British or other bias against Schumacher you would have to reference it better than your comments here. Mark83 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I don't believe it was the BBC. I don't quite recall, as I was a teenager at the time. That wasn't the point. i was unaware you ahd some personal bend regarding my comment of BBC. Perhaps you should start by chasing down the article by them I originally mention, titled "tainted legacy", which claims that while schumacher is highly talented and comaprable to people like Senna, but that he has a "dark side", yet they never bring up the fact that if you control for years in formula-1, Schuamcher is a proverbial angel comapred to Senna, both on the track and off.Ernham 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well just to be clear, I don't work for the BBC, know anyone who does, or have any personal interest in it. I just couldn't believe that you singled it out for criticism the way you did. The BBC did produce the British F1 coverage before ITV, however I find it even less likely that they would use the term "kraut". I don't have any first hand knowledge of Senna's career - I've only been following F1 for about 10 years. Your latest comment is the first time you have mentioned a specific article, I'll see if I can find it. Mark83 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't say the British press is universaly anti-Schumacher. For example, the current ITV crew is actually quite sympathetic to Michael. James Allen is known to be a Ferrari fan (he named his son Enzo), and Martin Brundle was Schumacher's teammate and mentor at Benetton in 1992. The two were so close that Schumacher asked Ferrari to sign Brundle as his teammate in 1996, but Marlboro preferred Irvine. There are also more Schumi supporters than detractors in the respectable print media. Peter Windsor is a Schumi admirer, and the rest of the respectable journalists are pretty even-handed with Schumi. The only respected journalist with a consistent anti-Schumi stance is Nigel Roebuck. In the English tabloid media there are definetly mindless Schumi haters, but who cares about them? 141.161.36.76 02:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal/moving of sections of the "sportsmanship" section

75% of the sportmanship section is filled with FIA and their various associates, such as stewards, incompotence, having little to nothing to do with the supposed sportsmanship of Schumahcer.

This entire section, essentially:

"In 1998 season, Schumacher created controversy by winning the British GP in the pit lane. He was issued a 10s stop-and-go penalty for overtaking during the Safety Car laps. Knowing that a conventional in-stop-out penalty would lose him the race to championship contender Mika Häkkinen, the team delayed him going into the pit for the penalty the allowed number of laps (3) and only served the penalty after the end of the race, thus avoided the slow out lap from the pit that would have caused him to lose the race. However, because the stewards had incorrectly issued the penalty Schumacher escaped punishment as the stewards later rescinded the penalty. The penalty (for overtaking Alex Wurz under safety car on lap 43 of 60) should have been issued within 25 minutes but Ferrari were informed 6 minutes after the limit had expired. The handwritten notification was also unclear as to which penalty was actually being issued: a 10s stop/go, or 10 seconds added to Schumacher's race time (a penalty which could only be used to punish an infraction in the last 12 laps).[19] As a result the three stewards involved handed in their licences at an extraordinary meeting of the FIA World Council.[20]

In 2003 European Grand Prix, Schumacher was helped back to the track by marshals when he ended up high-sided on the kerb after a spin. Many fans falsely believed that this was illegal, as drivers may not receive outside assistance to get back on the track. However, an exception is made if a car is in a dangerous position, and the FIA judged that this was indeed the case. Schumacher's critics complained of a double-standard, which they believe, again falsely, was substantiated by the marshals' refusal to aid Fernando Alonso in the 2004 Italian Grand Prix when he was in a similar situation. However, the rules for this situation had changed as the exception in the 2003 rules had been removed in the 2004 version. Schumacher also received a push from the marshals in the 2005 Australian Grand Prix, although he retired anyway due to suspension damage after driving back to the pits. However, Nick Heidfeld, who was involved in the same incident, received no help from the marshals and had to retire. However, receiving a push from marshals when a car is in a dangerous situation is hardly a unique or even rare thing. A notable example, for instance, is Riccardo Patrese, who won the 1982 Monaco Grand Prix having received a push from the marshals after a spin on the penultimate lap." Ernham 03:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving? maybe if you can find a better title. Removal? No Mark83 11:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you better think of one, then, because as it stands, these sections need to be removed. They have nothing to do with Schumacher personally. They all belong in a wiki about the FIA. Maybe changing the section before its name to championship collisions and other controversies and add it there. Even that I do no about the inclusion of some of this. If one is to include all these as issues involving schumacher, well he's had the short end of the the stick when it comes to the FIA more often than not, despite what the British peanut hallery/press like to believe in their fairytale landErnham 12:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No they don't need to be removed. Ernham I think (and this is just my own personal opinion) that you need to take a step back and think what you're trying to achieve with your contributions to this article. If it is the white-washing of his entire career you've come to the wrong place. I know you've got a British press conspiracy theory, however criticism of Schumacher comes from a far wider field than the UK. Mark83 13:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe we have already heard your opinion on the matter. As far as I've seen, you have not adequately defended the position this belongs in a section regarding Schumachers sportsmanship. furthermore, if we count such incidents as note worthy for schumacher, then every F-1 winner in the last 30 years or so will need a section on the flippant nature of FIA, and we will call all the sections something in relation to sportsmanship. When you have done that with every driver satisfactorily, then we will but these back into the Schumacher wiki.

Ernham 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that you are blatantly opposed to anything that isn't complimentary. Your POV is blatant with edits such as describing Ferrari as a "juggernaut of world beaters". The above is a rediculous comment. A section is either justified or not; If it is justified the absence of a comparable section on other articles is irrelevant to its presence here. Mark83 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The section should be there, since there has been a lot of controversy about Schumacher's sportsmanship. However, I think the choice of incidents is pretty lousy. The first time that Schumi's sportsmanship was questioned was at the 1994 British GP (not taking the black flag), but this incident isn't in there. Another major issue is Schumacher's 'chop blocks', especially at race starts in 2000. The incidents that are listed don't actually have a lot to do with Schumi - Silverstone 1998 was a major screw-up by the stewards, and Nurburgring 2003 was completely legal. 141.161.36.76 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion request

The sentence should be as informative as possible. The links to other people who helped turn the team around into a winning team are useful to people wanting to know more. The reference is absolutely necessary; references are Wikipedia policy. The more informative sentence with the links to to other team members and a reference should stay. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i don't have any issues with the current one i just made, which happens to include them; however, the logic of this is quite stretching. Do we not also have to credit every person -- by name-- in the pit crew? all the management staff of Ferrari and etc. Shumacher is given the main credit for turnign them around because of not only his talent but because of his feedback. Almost every person that has been listed on there already Schumaacher actually talked into leaving benetton for Ferrari. Is their success not equally Schumachers since he was the key in bringing them on-board? There was nothing wrong with the original way i had, and most experts would agree that the success at ferrari has is almost completely the result of Michael Schuamcher. Even stirling moss said that in a documentary on michael several years back " It's not all the championships michael has won that has impressed me the most. It's what he did with Ferrari. I don't think anyone else could have ever done that" Ernham 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall of that was Jackie Stewart or Stirling Moss, actually. Hopefully i have not mis-atributed that. It's from one of the two Ernham 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The same logic extends to the new comment. If Schumacher was the only one to leave Benetton, Ferrari would never have been the team it is today. He was an essential part of its success, but so were the people that went with him. If Brawn, Byrne etc. had stayed at Benetton they could have got another driver and come at least close to their old success. Mark83 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps it should be mentioned that they followed him from Bentton at his urging (if that was the case). ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's documented, but I think it's pretty clear that Michael was given carte blanche as to who else should be headhunted.
I'm not all that happy with either "also-ran" or "struggling", to be honest - Ferrari won one Grand Prix and finished third in the Constructor's Championship the year before Michael joined them. That was a poor return for all the money that had already been thrown at the team, but hardly "struggling". -- Ian Dalziel 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the whole end of the sentence "turning this once struggling team into the most winning Formula One team in history". This suggests Ferrari had never won a thing but Schumacher, Brawn etc. had turned it into the most successful F1 team. In reality they made a once great team great again. Mark83 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Once good, once struggling, then great. Relative to each other, that is an adequate psuedo-timeline. when schumacher first joined, compared to its former or current self, Ferrari was indeed "struggling".Ernham 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you translate "an adequate pseudo-timeline" into English for me, please? I'm a bit thick at times... -- Ian Dalziel 01:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The third sentence conveys essentially the same thing. Ignore the first and second if it troubles you. Ernham 03:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

more info for Schumacher records

I don't have time to put this in now, but the following from The Times (UK), 11/9/06, p. 79, has info on his nearest rival for some of his records, quite interesting if it can be included, but maybe need a separate article for his records because this is getting quite lengthy. This article can also be found here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5923-2352113_2,00.html

SIMPLY THE BEST

Michael Schumacher’s career records make him far and away the most successful driver in Formula One history

Schumacher is the only driver to have finished an entire season on the podium (2002) and holds the record for the most successive races in the points with 24 (2001-2003) and most successive podium finishes with 19(2001-2002)

Schumacher also holds the record for the biggest winning points margin in a season with 67 in 2002, the year in which he became the fastest to win the title when he was crowned with six races to spare

With Rubens Barrichello, Schumacher holds the record for the most one-two finishes of any pairing in Formula One history with 24 between 2000-2005

Edward Gorman

Other records

FASTEST RACE LAPS

Michael Schumacher 75

Alain Prost 41 2nd

HAT-TRICKS (pole, win, fastest lap)

Michael Schumacher 22

Jim Clark 11 2nd

PODIUM FINISHES

Michael Schumacher 153

Alain Prost 106 2nd

TOTAL CAREER POINTS

Michael Schumacher 1,354

Alain Prost 768.5 2nd

WINS FROM POLE

Michael Schumacher 40

Ayrton Senna 29 2nd

POLE POSITIONS

Michael Schumacher 68

Ayrton Senna 65 2nd

GRAND PRIX WINS

Michael Schumacher 90

Alain Prost 51 2nd

DRIVERS’ CHAMPIONSHIPS

Michael Schumacher 7

Juan Manuel Fangio 5 2nd place

WINS IN A SEASON

Michael Schumacher, 2004 13

2002 11

1995, 2000, 2001 9

Nigel Mansell 9 2nd

195.222.43.148 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Schumacher/Archive_4&oldid=1137008409"