Talk:Michael Schumacher/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Photo from 1998 British GP

Since it now seems to have been established that the photo from the 1998 British GP depicts Coulthard, not Hakkinen, I would suggest that the photo could/should probably be removed from the article, on the basis that (1) it's not an especially clear photo and (2) presumably it was originally included in the article to illustrate the 1998 Championship battle between Schumacher and Hakkinen which, if it's Coulthard, it no longer does. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right it probably shouldn't be in the article. Neldav 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would but I don't know a pic that could replace that.LB22 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FA

As the article is not promoted (it was nominated a little bit too early), I suggest we work on this article until majority of the editors are happy with the status of the article before we nominate it again. --Cyktsui 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what don't about the way they judge FAC. Unlike failed GAC you get no feedback on why it failed. Buc 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know all that happens for FAC is that Raul looks at the comments, and if there is a clear consensus to pass, he passes it, if not he fails it. There wasn't a clear consensus to pass in this case. 4u1e 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and as I said before: The problem is that doesn't provide feedback. Buc 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? The nomination page provides the feedback. It would be a certain pass if a consensus on the issues raised can be reached here - that way only style issues etc. need be cleaned up in a FA nomination. Mark83 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what are the issues? Buc 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Going from the review page:

"The description of his career could use more analysis" - was this comment addressed? It's not marked as being done.
- analysis? Do they just mean more info? Buc 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, they said "The description of his career could use more analysis, I think it would be difficult for people with no prior knowledge to understand why he preformed better in some seasons than in others. For instance, in 2002 and 2004 a lot of statistics are provided, but it's never mentioned that his car was widely considered superior to the rest of the field. Same in 2005, here I would expect something about the inferior Bridgestone tyres that season." So it's a question of going through the whole article and asking yourself, 'Is it clear to a new reader why Schumacher performed in this way in this season?', the Bridgestone thing was just one example. You might try getting someone unfamiliar with F1 to read the article and see whether they understand what is going on. 4u1e 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Ah yes I remember now. I felt this was more to do with Bridgestone and Ferrari than Schumacher. Buc 18:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Yes, but it was a general point, not just one about Bridgestone - does the article as a whole give a reader new to the topic the understanding needed? 4u1e 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Referencing - still not of FA standard. You have gone to great efforts to clean up refs, Buc, and it does look much better. However:

-There really needs to be more hardcopy, there are plenty of books on him to use.

-I can still see two unsuitable looking references at 42 (a sports talk page) and 93 (better from the movie site instead?).

I've provied a better ref for #93 but for some reason the link is still appearing in URL form. Buc 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean ref #94? I have fixed that, the issue is there was a new line character in the title --Cyktsui 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

-It still concerns me that the latter two thirds of the article are largely ref'd from short syndicate pieces, which support the individual facts, but not the way they are stitched together.

-Some of the refs don't actually support the words as currently written: For example Ref 34 doesn't mention Rory Byrne (who definitely should be mentioned), and so doesn't support the text at that point.

Added another ref. Buc 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ref 41 doesn't say he cried when asked about Senna,

Re-phared it. Buc 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I'm a bit worried by this approach: Schumacher did as far as I remember break into tears when asked about equalling Senna's record, it's just that that particular ref didn't mention it. We can probably find one that does mention it, rather than removing legitimate information. 4u1e 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ref 45 is supposed to support MS being in a collision at the 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix, but he actually spun off according to that article. Bit of a subtle point, ref 46 does not say the FIA 'declared the Michelin front tyres illegal', but that they added a requirement to measure tread width after the race as well as before. Since the Michelin tyre got wider in use, this meant they had to change their tyre design at short notice to meet a new requirement. Not quite the same thing.

-There are still unreferenced facts - I have marked some up. There are probably others.

-One other odd thing. Why have we got two refs for Ralf being an F1 driver? It's hardly likely to be challenged, just the one would do, but I think you added it again last time I removed it. Is there a reason?

I haven't checked the whole article in detail - I expect there are other issues similar to the ones I have picked out above which also need to be fixed.

I will go thru the referencing again to standardise their format (it has been like 6 months since I last worked on this I think) and to make sure none of the links are broken. Should we also find other references as a lot of them are based on BBC sport? --Cyktsui 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to get the books in there. I know I said I would do this (I have to admit I got a bit demotivated when the article was put up for FA before we agreed between us that it was ready) and I will keep on working on it, but it probably won't be quick! (I'm in the middle of the slow and painful process of buying a flat, which takes up far more time than you'd think!) I would also be more inclined to do it quickly if the books were better written :(. Aside from that, using broader based articles would be an improvement, a lot of what we have here is based on slightly throwaway lines in short reports. I'd feel happier with material from longer more considered sources, personally. 4u1e 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I think book as references are better as they are more likely to be reviewed and edited before published, especially on the issues of what the world thinks of Schumacher. However, looking at Adam_Gilchrist which is currernt FA, a large number of references are url which gives me confidence that the quality of our references is not as bad as we thought. I may look into getting some books after my examination. --Cyktsui 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Imbalance in coverage between earlier and later seasons - still seems to be an issue. The 2000s are noticeably longer than the 1990s.
Blnguyen still has a (or several) problems with NPOV. I don't agree with him on most of them and put my response on the review page, but he has not replied. I've got some sympathy with you on this one Buc, since he tends to comment and run, but his points may have influenced the FAC director's decision not to pass. Since this is obviously an article he watches to some extent, and he often comments at FA review, we should probably engage to address his concerns (this does not necessarily mean doing whatever he asks, however! ;-))
Carabinieri didn't seem to be satisfied with the changes you made, although I would argue that the article would be worse if structured as he proposed. <shrug>
- I made the chages he asked me to make but he seems to think a haven't. He diddn't give any reasoning so there is really nothing I can do. Buc 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm guessing that what he actually meant was to put all of the controversy material into the main body of the article. I happen to think that's quite a bad idea however, so I don't suggest we do it. This is an encyclopedia, not a story, so it makes sense to pick out particular topics under their own heading. For Schumi 'Controversy' is a very apt sub-section to have, the focus would be lost if it were merged into the main text. 4u1e 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I think having a separate section is good as putting that into the main body makes it feels like they are hidden. Also, when someone look at the contents, they can identify it easily. --Cyktsui 02:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      - What like a copy and paste job. Buc 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (edit: referring to the idea of combining 'Controversy' into the racing history)
        Sort of, although I doubt it would be that straightforward. Please don't do it though, as I really don't think it would be an improvement. 4u1e 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Those seem to be the major points - there may be others in there, it's a bit confused! 4u1e 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Statistically the greatest???

How can Schumacher be considered "statistically the greatest driver the sport has ever seen"? [1]

Does he have the highest mean and the lowest standard deviation and variance?
Can the formula1.com website be considered a reliable source in terms of statistics? The site clearly has interests in making propaganda of Formula 1 and its drivers.
In terms of statistics, Fangio and Clark aren't the greatest drivers (and maybe other one)?

I think this is really controversial and unneeded. --NeutralPoint 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I say get rid of it. This is the same type of trouble I run into when dealing with athletes like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Michael Jordan. It's a shame but I'm glad someone else is in favor of getting statements like this out of the text. //Tecmobowl 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I got your point. All the time sevaral fanatics want somehow try to make their idols seem the greatest ones using statements/sources not really... encyclopaedic. This is troublesome and has to change. --NeutralPoint 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think these articles communicate the feelings of the editors rather than the information that should be delivered. These are not black and white situations; rather, let the facts speak for themselves. I'm okay with citing a few relevant polls and such, but for the most part, people are quick to call someone the greatest "whatever". If people present the facts properly, then they can allow the reader to assume whatever he wants. //Tecmobowl 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being a little harsh on the formula1.com site. Although it does have an interest in promoting F1, there's no particular need for them to promote one driver (Schumacher) over another (Fangio would be the other candidate). You guys obviously understand statistics better than Formula1.com - what they mean by that phrase is that Schumacher has won the most races, championships, poles and quite a few other things. I suspect they wouldn't know a standard deviation if it bit them in the bum. There is a valid point made elsewhere in the lead that Schumacher has the highest totals in most categories. I think there would be space for a quote or comment to the effect that Schumacher is one of the small group considered possibly to be the 'greatest', whatever that means. The others are normally considered to be Fangio, Clark and Senna. Some would add Stewart and Prost. This would require a ref of course, the ideal would be a quote from a notable source. 4u1e 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain the situation a little bit. Firstly, we are not doing hypothesis testing to determine who is the better driver. Secondly, in sport, when people refer to statistic, they normally do not get into the technical terms like standard deviation. Total and average are used in general. I can see your point of view, but I think you are getting a bit too technical here. Audiences like to look at the simple statistics for sport players in order to compare their performance, but the statistics that they are referring to is not the technical statistics. I also agree with 4u1e that there is no obvious reason why formula1.com would like to promote Schumacher over another, therefore, I do not think it is biased. If we are to say Schumacher is the greatest driver, then it could be POV. Furthermore, we are just quoting from the official formula one website. --Cyktsui 23:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't buy into formula1.com being pro-Schumacher or any other driver. FIA bias could be argued, but the website has nothing to do with the FIA - it is owned by Aplha Prema (CVC & Ecclestone). Also, even if we play along with the notion that it is biased, how exactly does it benefit from hyping a driver? It could say all it wanted, but people reading the official F1 website are very likely to watch the races anyway. They aren't going to win over massive television audiences by this method - the only way a driver can cause a massive new interest in F1 is by being genuinely good and the mainstream media picking up on it - e.g. Lewis Hamilton. Mark83 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone says that someone else is statistically or scientifically the best something, this person has to be qualified to say something like that. If not, it is just a point of view based in fake science and it is not encyclopaedic, neither it is a reliable source. This is not a question of interpretation of what they tried to say. BTW, read WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. --NeutralPoint 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's called fake science. You got to admit by looking at the records, the most number of wins, the most number of Drivers' Championship, the most point in a season, he is statistically the greatest driver. We are not taking about average or standard deviation, therefore, you cannot carry out hypothesis testing on it. However, you cannot forget the fact that total is also one kind of statistics. Also, I don't think WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves applies in this case as firstly we are simply quoting, and secondly it is hard for readers to know the performance of other drivers simply by reading the article - therefore, they cannot possibly realise how Schumacher compared with other drivers. --Cyktsui 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cyktsui - I think it's pretty clear that www.formula1.com doesn't intend anything other than to imply the greatest total scores. I think it unlikely that anyone will read it any other way - what else could it mean? In F1 total scores are overwhelmingly the most commonly used statistics. Average scores are sometimes, but much less often, used. The sport does not lend itself to detailed 'proper' statistical analysis, unlike baseball or basketball. Few drivers score many points, even fewer of those score wins, and only a minute fraction score significant numbers of wins. Wins and points are heavily dependent on the team driven for, much more so than say football where a striker in a relegated team can still score 15 goals (a reasonable total) in a season. An analysis similar to the one Stephen Jay Gould apparently did for baseball (I think he found that Babe Ruth was the only player to have actually scored outside the norms of what one would expect) would make little sense in F1 terms. Having said that, if we can find a quote from someone rating Schumacher up there with the greats, I think that would be an appropriate substitution, if this one cause concern. 4u1e 08:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nearly every record"

There is a statement in the lead that I very strongly object to, but am not sure how to edit. Yes, Schumacher holds many records, undoubtedly more than any other driver. But to imply that he holds more records than every other F1 driver in history put together is some claim. I considered changing to "holds more F1 records than any other driver" or similar, but such a claim would also need a source. BeL1EveR 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean the phrase: "holds nearly every record in Formula One"? I think that went in as a summary to avoid listing all of them in the lead. Although it is quite a claim, I think it is justifiable, if we are talking about major records - wins, poles, fastest laps and championships, either career totals or per year. 4u1e 11:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see a potential problem in the phrase though - record could be a bad thing. Say in soccer, the record of longest streak of not winning a match... --Cyktsui 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

...or most races without a win (held by Mr A. de Cesaris). True, true. Hmm: 'Holds nearly every major good record in F1'. Sounds a bit strained doesn't it? I think most readers would still get the point, but how about we change it to 'holds many records' (undisputed, I hope?!) and let the records talk for themselves. 4u1e 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

HE IS THE BEST, SO JUST SAY IS KNOWN TO BE THE GREATEST DRIVER THE SPORT HAS SEEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.81.8 (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rain Master

It seems like we don't have a reference that gives Schumacher the two titles for rain king and rain master that we are claiming in the article. The reference provided only refers him as the rain master, but not as Regenmeister. I did some google search and couldn't find any good quality references. Anyone care to help out? --Cyktsui 08:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We know who was the rainmaster, and it was Michael Schumacher...look for the GP of Spain of 1996 on the Catalonia's circuit.--GillesV 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found (and added) some references where Schumacher is referred to as "Regenkonig" and "Regenmeister". DH85868993 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about exact number of races, I'm not sure what is rain race. Here's my quick list of wet races Michael took part. Bolded ones are victories. 1991: Australia; 1992: Spain, France, Belgium; 1993: Brazil, Europe, San Marino; 1994: Japan; 1995: San Marino, Belgium, Europe, Japan; 1996: Brazil, Monaco, Spain; 1997: Monaco, France, Belgium; 1998: Britain, Belgium; 1999: France; 2000: Europe, Canada, USA; 2001: Malaysia, Brazil; 2002: Britain; 2003: Australia, Brazil, USA; 2004: Italy, Brazil; 2005: Belgium; 2006: Hungary, China. As a qualification I have used that at least some drivers have used wet tyres. Japanese GP 1993 and German GP 2000 are out from the list because Michael retired before rain. That would give 15/30 in the end of 2003, 16/35 in total. BleuDXXXIV 16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm starting to get mad. A new article about Schumacher's wet weather driving needs to be created. Oh, and add Spain 1991 to that list. Amazing drive.

However, I don't think a section should be included in his article at it is now. --Cyktsui 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'm kindly asking for the same kind of removing action to be applied in the Ayrton Senna article. It's just wrong. SchumiChamp

Table of wins

Personally I don't think this table is necessary, but if it's going to remain, then, considering that the wins aren't in numerical order, would it be worth ordering the races by descending number of victories, i.e. France (8 wins) at the top, then San Marino and Canada (7 wins), etc. -- DH85868993 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tottally agree with everything you said. There is nothing there that the Complete Formula One results table doesn't tell you. And when I first read it I thought "huh? 1st and 16th win?" Buc 07:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it --Morio 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

2007

I realise there is a change in the heading from 2005-2006 to 2005-2007. I wonder if it is appropriate as 2007 is not part of his racing career. He is going to test drive for Ferrari, but not racing for them... Any thoughts? --Cyktsui 04:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as things stand, his racing career ended in 2006. The recent testing material should probably be cut down considerably and be worked into a 'post Racing Career' section. What will actually be in that section we will have to wait and see, of course! 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrote vs alleged

Storm in a teacup time :-). Regarding the 1994 incident with Damon Hill at the Australian GP, the article contains the sentence "British author Alan Henry has written that Schumacher was blamed by 'many F1 insiders' for the incident."

Like many race incidents, views are sharply divided on where, if anywhere, fault lies for this incident. One point of view, not the only one, is that it was Schumacher's fault, and it is this view that the quote is intended to support. User: 66.190.29.150 has edited this to read that Alan Henry alleges that many F1 insiders blame Schumacher etc.

The reasoning given is that "What he "wrote" is an allegation that is impossible to back up, unless you have a f1 insiderpoll?"

My feeling is that the use of alleges casts unreasonable doubt on what Henry says. Alleges has a specific use in a legal context where a claim is unproven, but used outside that context it simply adds doubt to a claim. The reasoning given above for using alleges, I think, misses the point: we don't need to prove that what Henry wrote is true, only that he wrote it, that he is a reliable source, and that it represents a significant point of view.

I believe all three of those points to be true. That he wrote it can be checked by anyone who can get access to the book. Regarding reliability, Alan Henry is a highly respected journalist who has specialised in F1 for over 30 years. As well as being an F1 insider himself, he regularly talks to 'F1 insiders' as an integral part of his job. He writes for motoring magazines and has published upwards of 40 books on the subject. And it is certainly true that there is a significant body of opinion that the incident was Schumacher's fault, just as there is another that it was not.

I'm restoring 'has written' as neutral wording. I'd be grateful if we could discuss the matter here before changing it again. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

user:Sporti has just added a ref'd comment from Murray Walker that Walker did not believe it was deliberate, which is fine by me as an example of the opposing point of view. There's also the fact that the stewards did not take any action, which was already in the article. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

how is it that he could possibly know what the majority of f1 insiders think unless he conducted a poll? This is obviosuly an sburd claim that he cannot back up, and in fact he cites not a single f1 insider in his book. This is an allegation.66.190.29.150 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say a majority, he said many, which is a completely different measure. And it's his job to find out what F1 insiders think, that's what F1 journalists do. The normal way of doing things would be to talk to them, not a formal poll, but perfectly adequate to assess whether many people hold a view or not. If you are concerned that the words currently imply that a majority thought it was Schumacher's fault (I am not), then I suggest we add a phrase to the start of the para along the lines of 'Opinions were divided over the incident'. Cheers. 4u1e 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Have done so. 4u1e 09:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Height? Weight?

?? --Hamsterlopithecus 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic? :) Dunno. I can see it's relevant for boxers, basketball players etc., but I'm not sure it's all that relevant for this sport. Weight hasn't been a factor in F1 since very early in Schumacher's career: the car minimum weight has been set including the driver's weight since the early 1990s. Height can be a negative factor for very tall drivers like Justin Wilson. Schumacher is, as far as I know, not unusually tall or short, so that's probably not relevant either. 4u1e 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Corinna

I heard that Corinna dated Heinz-Harald Frentzen anyone know if this is true? Worth including if someone can find a source? Tommy turrell (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true, and James Allen's recent Schumacher book would do as a source. But I don't think it's worth including. --Don Speekingleesh (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia?

Probably too trival to be in so I'll leave it up to others to decide. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

While I like the story, such tales are two a penny for most F1 drivers, so I guess it's probably not notable. 4u1e (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Honour and helment

I am not too sure if these actually fall under the heading of Retirement as they are now. Surely Schumacher has received honours while he was still a F1 driver... Can I revert the edits? --Cyktsui (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Schumacher's retirement

Schumacher can't be concidered as "a retired Formula 1 driver" because he is still testing Ferrari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.103.22 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is he racing? 4u1e (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He is testing which means that he drives a formula 1 car, therefore, he has not retired as he is still in the buisness but he does not race as such —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.242.226 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Motorcycle Racing

Micheal Schumacher is currently doing motorcycle racing. http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=/2008/5/19/sports/21294403&sec=sports --Pavithran (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit

[2] - Shouldn't it really be consistent throughout? I was tempted to revert, but thought it'd be better to head here instead for clarification. D.M.N. (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the differences between "Scuderia Ferrari S.p.A." and "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro", I am pretty sure that the former name was only used in 1996, whereas the latter was used up until 2007. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. Dav115 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

inclusion of crash in Kent

I think that Schumacher crashing his van in Kent is notable, I mean how often does an ex-F1 driver crash. This is the same as when Mansell was banned from driving for speeding, relatively minor but notable due to the individual. It is also just as notable as the tobacco section the stuff on his films. It is also well sourced from a credible news outlet.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it barely merits a line. It will be increasingly less important as time goes on, and it really was an incredibly minor crash. I think a single line with a reference would suffice at most. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant to be honest. It doesn't tell us anything about Schumacher, and it's not a big news story. We don't even know if it's rare for Schumacher (or other F1 drivers) to crash - the source says nothing about that. We do not list every single referenceable thing that has been written about Schumacher - I could fill hundreds of Wikipedia pages if we were going to do that, given the number of books, magazine articles and news stories that have been written about him. The films are notable (just) because he only got the parts because he is famous, the tobacco is certainly notable, but would be better covered in the main F1 article than here. If necessary to get consensus I would certainly be happy to delete all three from the article. 4u1e (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to slimming the section down to one line or the removal of all three sections and the information placed on the articles concerning the events , for example placing information regarding the crash on the Lydd article. I just disagree with the other similar minor information being included and not this information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on so what for any english people who want to support keeping this, HAMILTON lost his road driving liscence so can only drive in f1 maybe we should say that!!!!!!!! say it but i think it is unnessesary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.86.16 (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If the above information can be sourced then it is significant in the Hamilton article. This is because an F1 driver not being able to drive off the track, is significant because he cannot drive for pleasure only for work.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who think Schumacher's crash is irrelevant. As for the Hamilton thing - anon. should get his/her facts straight. He was banned for only a month and only in France. Since he doesn't live there it couldn't have been a big inconvenience. Mark83 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial driver

Started wondering. Is there really any need for this section? I mean, Senna fans protested how it was unappropriate to have an article about Senna's controversial moves and criticism. I don't see how such a section should be more justified in Schumacher's case.SchumiChamp (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem as such with having a controversy section in Senna's article - the problem you've had previously is that you've created a new section by repeating material at length from earlier on in that article, whereas this article covers the incidents briefly in the 'Racing career' section, and then does them in depth later on. If you want to move material in the Senna article to create such a section, referenced, natch, then go for it. Having said that, this is not the place to discuss it - try raising the idea at the Senna talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I should note that there seems to be an increasing point of view at Wikipedia that 'Controversy' sections are bad, and that the material should be integrated into the main text. I'm not sure I agree, but in any case, the content stays the same, it's just a question of how it is organised. 4u1e (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy sections are perfectly okay in my view, and people like Schumacher seem to earn them with their behaviour. I'm a little concerned though by the uncited descriptions in the Other incidents section though - lots of words with no sources. Malick78 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of the offending words were recently added and have been removed again (as they offered the writer's pov with no reference). Some further ref'ing is needed, though. 4u1e (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Schumacher's teammates

i think it would be interesting to mention somewhere that Schumacher always wanted inexperienced drivers with him in the team. for example wins that his teammates achieved before joining him in the team:

benetton 1994 Lehto & Verstappen zero

benetton 1995 Herbert zero

ferrari 1996 Irvine zero

ferrari 2000 Barrichello zero

ferrari 2005 Massa zero

neither of those drivers won the f3000 championship to my knowledge. thoughts?

Loosmark (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good thing to add, if a reputable source could be found to back it up. Otherwise it might be WP:OR :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Breton. As an aside, since no F2, F3000 or (yet) GP2 champion has ever won the F1 world championship, and indeed very few of them have even won races, Schumacher might actively have preferred to have them as team-mates! 4u1e (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"and indeed very few of them have even won races" may i ask what are you talking about? on top on my head, f2/f3000/GP2 champions who have won races in F1: Ickx, Regazzoni, Peterson, Hailwood, Jarier, Depailler, Laffite, Jabouille, Arnoux, Alesi, Panis, Montoya, Hamilton.. and there probably others i don't recall. Loosmark (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Remembering that it was meant as a humorous remark, and not intended to start a fight ;-), I stand by my observation as far as GP2 and F3000 go. Only 1 GP2 champ of 4 has won an F1 race. Only 3 of 20 F3000 champs have won F1 races, and two of those (Alesi and Panis, bless 'em) won only a single race each, and were slightly lucky on the day to do so. Looking further back, I overstated the case for F2, but even there, only 7 of the 18 European champs (Ickx, Regazzoni, Peterson, Depailler, Lafitte, Jabouille, and Arnoux) have won a championship F1 race, and of them only Peterson got into double figures. Summing up, that makes 11 out of 42 champs from the top European F1 feeder series, about 25%, to have won a race. Considering that the bulk of the winners were from the 1970s, I submit to the court that my contention is entirely reasonable that if Schumacher was looking for Number 2s he could comfortably cope with, F2/F3000/GP2 champions would on average make an excellent pool to select from. I rest my case. :D 4u1e (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

F2/F3000/GP2 champions would surely be a more dangerous Number 2 than people who flopped in F3000 like Barrichello. or to put differently who do you think was a better driver Alesi or Irvine? Montoya or Barrichello? Hamilton or Massa? Loosmark (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is particularly relevant. However: Alesi over Irvine, but both had serious shortcomings; Hamilton narrowly over Massa (basically only because Massa has much more experience, so should be making better use of his opportunity) Also note that Massa never drove in the International F3000 series, but did completely dominate the Euro F3000 series, so he's doesn't illustrate the point you're making; Montoya and Barrichello - even stevens. Montoya more aggressive, Barrichello probably actually a faster driver.

This is irrelevant though, since you're picking your examples to suit the result you want: Coulthard or Wilson? Hill or Sospiri? Alonso or Zonta? 4u1e (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

the Euro series at the time when Massa drove it was nowhere near as strong as the International F3000 series. Barrichello a faster driver than Montoya? you must be kidding. Montoya won F3000 championship, Indianapolis 500, CART championship, the Monaco GP (in a Williams, when was the last time a Williams won Monaco before that? 1983) and came close to winning the 2003 championship in an inferior car. and what about Barrichello? he drove the best car for years and never came close. basicaly he was Schumacher's lapdog. anyway my original point was that Schumacher never wanted a strong number 2 in the team (somebody like Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton or Montoya). if this can't be proven then at least the article should mention that unlike other great champions of the sport he had weak teammates.Loosmark (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

...but Massa absolutely dominated Euro F3000, and because he never drove in International F3000, we have no idea what he would have done there. Barrichello is a longer discussion, but I think you're confusing success with speed. Barrichello's mental approach is (or was) nothing like as tough as Montoya's, but that's not particularly related to how fast you can drive a car. Anyhoo - Wikipedia is not a forum and all that. I'm happy to carry on the discussion, but we should move it to my talk page if we're going to. It's irrelevant to writing this article. The important point, as made at the top of the conversation, is not to carry out our own original research. If you can find - and you may well do - a significant commentator making the point that you want to make, then let's quote them and put it in the article. If we can't find such a source, then it shouldn't go in. Your view and my view on this are pretty much irrelevant (although obviously I'm right! ;-)) 4u1e (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree that this discusion doesn't belong here. i disagree on everything thing else (Montoya > Barrichello) Loosmark (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2005 rule changes "aimed at Ferrari"

"Ferrari, Bridgestone, fans, and commentators alike attributed this to the 2005 rule changes, which required tyres to last the distance of the whole race. According to the Associated Press, the rule changes were entirely targeted to ending the domination of Ferrari and Schumacher."

This section is questionable. Here are my problems with it:

I have never read or heard any comment from Ferrari or Bridgestone claiming the rule changes were aimed at them.
"Fans and commentators" are weasel words. A NUNBER of fans and a NUMBER of commentators maybe.
As 4u1e said above (mock GA evaluation) an AP reporter is not necessarily an authority on F1. I haven't seen any respected F1 magazine or website making this assertion. Mark83 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as it was worded and referenced - I think we might be able to find something to support 'XX suggested the FIA changed the rules to lessen Ferrari's dominance', where XX is somebody with a significant view (Lauda's a bit prone to saying that kind of thing...) - I have got a vague recollection of it being a topic of discussion at the time. If I'm reading the rules right if it's at least a significant minority view then we should mention it. --4u1e 06:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove cited material for no reason. It was commonly said the rules were targetted to ending the domination of Ferrari. It was hardly JUST the AP, but the fact the AP themselves used that angle indicates the degree to which that feeling on the rules resonated with F-! reports/analysts/etc. Do not reinvent history because you do not like it.Ernham 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the material FOR a reason, as I listed above. It is not only a right but a duty of Wikipedians to verify the information given by a cite. Mark83 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looked to me like you removed the whole part about the associated press saying the changes were targetted at ending Schumacher/Ferrari domination. The cite was essentially verbatim.Ernham 18:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, the cite from the AP that said "Alonso ended Schumacher's title run last year, with Schumacher and Ferrari struggling to adapt to rule changes intended to stop their dominance."Ernham 18:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put "According to the Associated Press, the (tyre) rule changes were entirely targeted to ending the domination of Ferrari and Schumacher." back in I wouldn't object. What I do object to (as I explained above) is "Ferrari, Bridgestone, fans, and commentators alike attributed this to the 2005 rule changes" - that is weasel words. A commentator cited saying this would be good, but generic "commentators" is not good enough. Also I repeat, I have never read or heard any comment from Ferrari or Bridgestone claiming the rule changes were aimed at them, as the sentence suggested. Mark83 18:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see the quote stay for the moment, provided we try and find a better one. The AP cite we have at the moment isn't about the changes to tyre rules, the article reports Schumacher's retirement and gives a very brief overview of his career. It's a very controversial topic - we're potentially accusing the FIA of fixing their own championship - as I said above we need a better quote from somebody of standing in the sport to back it up. --4u1e 20:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an article, not an editorial, and it's from the AP, not some joke outlet. It's the most repected news name in the world(it's the news source news sources get their news from), and their articles are "fact checked" by editors. The reality is IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE at time that the FIA was trying to shake things up after Schumacher had won 5 WDCs straight.Ernham 02:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still not the topic of the article. A better quote would be one from the FIA, Ferrari, Schumacher, Max Moseley, or any other significant figure. --4u1e 09:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus the story's syndication now seems to have expired - it's gone from all the websites it used to appear on, as far as I can see. We need a live ref if we can find one. 4u1e

Adelaide 1994

I've re-added the cited fact that many f1 insiders believe Schumacher to have been responsible for the Adelaide 94 crash. We're not arguing here about whether or not it was Schumacher's fault, but it is true that it is a very common view among commentators in the sport that this was the case. Not reporting this would be missing a fairly major point. The Alan Henry cite given reads as follows in the original book:

"many F1 insiders regarded the German as solely responsible for the collision which resolved the outcome of the 1994 World Championship"

That seems to me to be a good way to reference the views of many people without clogging up the article with multiple references. The alternative is to get a bunch (5? 10?) of references from reputable sources - something I am confident we could do - stating that they felt Schumacher was at fault. Before deleting the reference again can we explore how to cover this? Thanks. --4u1e 20:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And a cite that is "not easily verifiable" is not a reason for removing it. As long as the cite is full and detailed there is no requirement for an online link. By definition some souces cannot be online, e.g. copyrighted audio/visual sources.Mark83 20:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, do you want me to fill the whole page up with various analyses of the event that say it was a racing incident? Opinion is clearly divided on that, but to claim that "fomrula one insiders(wthe that means)" blame Schumacher is less than half the story. Some of them BLAME HILL, others blame Schuamcher, and most believe it was a simple "racing incident" with no guilty party. I see you guys ripped out my cite had a video showing the incident along with several F-1 analaysts and the racers themselves regarding that very incident. Curious, that.Ernham 20:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"you guys" is a broad term. I dont remember removing a video cite. Mark83 20:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Me either - I just re-added the phrase that was there before, with the ref. Unless Ernham is referring back further to the version as of a week or two back?

From the Wikipedia guidelines on WP:NPOV:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

All we need to do here is agree what the major views on the topic are. Certainly a large number of commentators believe that Schumacher was at fault, so that view should go in (If we don't agree that this is true then I'll give relevant refs below). The stewards believe no fault accrued - a racing incident. I didn't mention it in the article, but Murray Walker also feels that Schumacher wasn't at fault I believe, a view which should carry a fair weight. That view (that it was a racing incident) is also significant and should go in. Those are the two points of view mentioned in my/Serte's version of the paragraph. At most one ref required for each, I feel.

The current version only contains the view that it was a racing incident - I don't feel that this is balanced.

I completely agree that if many commentators - or even a single significant commentator - feel that Hill was at fault then we should mention that too. Let's see if we can find such a reference. I'll post back here when I've had a look - including at the video ref Ernham refers to. Grateful if others could do the same. Cheers.--4u1e 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding removal of video: It was this edit by User:Serte. I'm sure it was a genuine mistake. Mark83 21:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC

Actually it will be my fault then - I did an extensive edit (with his permission!) for length on the dummy version of those words on his user page (before he pasted them into the article). My apologies. --4u1e 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we mean this clip here: [3]? If so, I heard nothing there but absolute certainty from Jonathan Palmer that it was completely Schumacher's fault and more guarded comments from Murray Walker to the same effect. However, those were both from during the race. I'm not sure that it's the right clip - as Ernham's comments above indicate that post race commentary was covered. Ernham, sorry to be a pain, but can you locate your link again in one of the older versions of the article? Thanks. --4u1e 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the one I was referring to. Sorry for adding confusion if it's the wrong one. Mark83 21:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a different one linked in the article now (here). There's nothing there indicating that it was Hill's fault either, there is almost no judgement or view expressed by anyone except Hill or Schumacher. John Watson does say 'I can't blame Hill for making the move he did'. Hill just says that he saw Schumacher slowing and thought he was pulling over, Schumacher says he felt he was ahead and turning into the corner was justified. The relevant material seems to appear from about 3m40, by the way. The clip does seem to be edited from the original however - there are very brief flashes of Murray Walker and Heinz-Harald Frentzen as well and some of the editing seems very choppy - so we may be missing something relevant from the original version. I can't see anything yet to alter my view that the two major elements that should be represented are 1. A widespread belief that Schumacher was at fault 2. A view that it was a racing incident. --4u1e 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Going back to Ernham's original comment above, Yes, I do think we should put in all the significant views, which appears to me to be what the WP:NPOV guidelines demand. I believe the two significant views to be 1) Schumacher at fault 2) Racing accident - the current version of the text does not mention 1. I haven't seen any evidence yet to back up a proposed 3) Hill at fault. If we can find such, then we should include that as well - it's easy enough to do in very few words.

On that basis I propose we re-insert the fact that many commentators consider Schumacher to have been at fault. The racing accident view is already covered. I'll leave this for tonight - if there's no objection here by morning I'll put the words back in. If anyone has a reason for not putting this view in the piece, please comment here. Equally I'm happy to discuss exactly how we word that inclusion. Thanks. --4u1e 23:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Happy to change it something like "Both drivers have been blamed for the incidents by (suitable authorities)" instead if we can find a reference for Hill being held at fault. --4u1e 07:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Guys - can we keep references in (one of) the proper cite formats please? Direct web links don't go down well at review for GA or FA. Thanks. --4u1e 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree with that given that I spent about an hour converting them this week! Mark83 21:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you need some kind of citation software to do it the other way?Ernham 21:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, see Category:Citation_templates. Then use what's appropriate, e.g. Template:Cite news. Mark83 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ferrari years gutting

Nice job totally gutting that. The turn around of Ferrari is considered Schuamcher's greatest achievement by many experts. Trying to relegate it into some pathetic joke of a paragraph is quite ridiculous.Ernham 00:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? It's hard to respond otherwise. Thanks. Also, you may not be aware of it, but the way you comment on wikipedia can sound very aggressive towards other editors. I would be much happier if we can discuss this article in a polite and friendly manner. Cheers. --4u1e 00:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, aggressive indeed. It's now quite obvious that many of editors on this wiki have no intention of making it a better wiki. No longer can "editorial misunderstandings" suffice in rationalizing such behavior. The gutting is the removal of notable facts regarding the intro of the Ferrari years section. Someone slips things in like "drivers of cars in early 90s". Umm, no. All of those comments were at one point stated by Eddie irvine, who was not racing in the early "90s". One of those three was stated mutually by prost, who was indeed early 90s. Still, the overt attempts to pervert the truth in this wiki are plainly obvious. Seems like such a little thing, but they seem to do it ever sentence, again and again, all adding up to a big fat agenda.Ernham 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you guys did the same on the 1994 launch/traction control scandal. Remove Briatore quotes? Remove the facts that suggest Schuamcher was NOT using the software? Yes, no agenda here whatsoever.Ernham 01:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Taking the 'truck', 'pig' and 'accident' waiting to happen bit, I added 'early 1990s' because I thought I recognised them from Alain Prost's time at Ferrari in the early 1990s - he was fired for it at the end of 1991. The problem really is that the comment is not referenced - so that should be our first job in sorting this one. I'll see if I can find something - unless you have it to hand.--4u1e 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - the first ref I found for pig turned up all three, um, terms of endearment, from an article in the Telegraph, where they are attributed simply to drivers since 1979. I'll keep looking. --4u1e 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Telegraph link here: [4]

The Briatore quote I removed because that whole section was turning into a piece on Benetton, not Schumacher himself, and this article is too long - I've copied parts of what I removed to both the 1994 Formula One season and the Benetton Formula, so they haven't gone from Wikipedia. Limiting ourselves to Schumacher's culpability or otherwise, let's discuss what is missing from that section. Thanks. --4u1e 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence Benetton was not using traction/launch control in 1994, thus making it an important inclusion. If you want to include a controversial issue, you need to present it from both sides or not at all. The Ferrari "car" comments, yes, like i said above, prost did make one of those comments, but all three were also later said by eddie irvine (though irvine actually said "fire truck", I thought truck was sufficient).Ernham 01:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's OK - can we have the reference? The exact phrasing ('been called a truck, a pig and an accident waiting to happen') appears in a story that has been syndicated to several websites, including the Telegraph one I linked above, but I can't find it attributed to Irvine anywhere, just to drivers since 1979. Thanks. --4u1e 01:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Benetton in 1994, the article currently clearly says that the FIA found evidence of launch control software, but had no evidence that it was ever used and found no evidence of traction control software. The only bit missing is Briatore's quote, which obliquely says "We were fitted up". Briatore is not exactly a disinterested observer, his comments adds colour, but minimal content to the paragraph and given the length of the piece can, I feel, be safely omitted.--4u1e 02:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Prost said that driving the Ferrari was like driving a truck. This was the last year he was driving for Ferrari. No idea where to get that exact cite. However, in a British documentary done in the late 90s, Eddie irvine said that the Ferrari "handled like a firetruck", was "a pig"(assumably talking about fuel efficiency, given the context), and "an accident waiting to happen". He may have said some of these prior to it being filmed, however.Ernham 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, we can't use that as a reference - If you can get enough detail of the documentary to ref it (I guess - name, year, production company) it becomes more verifiable. In the meantime I will use the Telegraph one for 'drivers from 1979', which I suspect was thinking of Prost for the 'truck' bit. Cheers anyway --4u1e 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Living the Fast Life", September Films. 2000. Ernham 02:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Would you mind posting the words used, as I did for the Henry hardcopy reference, as you said earlier, offline references are a bit tricky for others to grasp. I'm interested in the context of which year he was referring to - he arrived at Ferrari in 1996, I believe. Thanks again. --4u1e 08:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

eBay's a wonderful thing - copies of 'Eddie Irvine - Living the fast life' (September Films), were going for 99p a copy, so I bought one. Having watched it, I think you must be mistaken in your recollection, Ernham. The video is a fly on the wall documentary of the 1999 season (in which Irvine came close to winning the world championship). Although it's quite entertaining, at no point during it does Irvine mention trucks, pigs or accidents waiting to happen. He makes some very mild criticism of the 1999 Ferrari, saying that it's so complicated he's surprised it doesn't break down more often and noting that McLaren always come up with a better car for Monza than Ferrari do, but that's it. There's no coverage of how bad Ferraris were before Schumacher arrived, anything to do with Schumacher's arrival at Ferrari four years earlier or how he might have influenced the Italian team's turnaround. Of interest, although not relevant to this discussion, there are some brief words from Schumacher about team orders - to the effect that Eddie had had to support Schumacher in the past and that Michael was happy to return the favour at the end of 1999.

Given that the wording in the Wikipedia article is identical to that in the Telegraph story (only for the names used, so not copyvio, I believe) it seems plain that it was taken from there. The current reference is therefore the right one, and the meaning is similar to my previous version ('drivers in the early 1990s....') - the point being that the cars weren't great in the years before Schumacher arrived.

Thanks for your help in tracking this one down. --4u1e 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is becoming very long?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Schumacher&diff=84332835&oldid=84331407

This should be removed... I mean, if you looked at the article a month ago, it was 100kb, now and after a lot of work it is only 79 kb and that's because of the big table at the complete formula one results, which occupies about 23kb. removed it, we'd get a 56kb article which is not very long. It could be reduced in this case, but it is not a very long article. I think the person who added this 1. didn't look at the history of the page 2. didn't check the fact that the table occupies too much without being regular text in an article. I would remove this, but I prefer to talk about it with other editors here and we'll see what to do. It was already suggested to transfer the table to somewhere else and use it as a template in this article so it becames smaller in kb.--Serte 01:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the maximum page length guideline is somewhere around 32kb. So, going by that guideline, it is indeed very long. There may be excellent reasons for it, that goes without saying. If you wish to transfer out some stuff to other articles, common sense suggests you do so on stuff which may be more peripheral to the subject (the table would be one) but which would stand as something better than a mere stub if they were on their own. Just my twopence'.--Ramdrake 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still too long, the note is I suppose a useful reminder, although I know it seems like a slap in the chops after so much work cutting stuff out. By the way, if we are looking for subsidiary articles to drop things into, I suggest that we use the existing race and season summaries and perhaps the Benetton article, which is a bit short anyway, rather than creating 'daughter' Schumacher articles. - By user:4u1e

CUT CUT CUT is the word now. Redudances and "not that much" notable stuff has to go out...--Serte 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire "controversy" section would be the first to go. Heh.Ernham 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That could make the article look somewhat one-sided. I'd say work into the text in the relevant sections the notable controversies, and decide if you want to keep the less notable controversies.--Ramdrake 14:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two general reasons for seperating it out as an individual section.

1)Rightly or wrongly, it's one of the major things people tend to 'know' about Schumacher so it's appropriate to have a section dealing with it.

2)In terms of readability there is a danger that if the article is just one long summary of his racing career it becomes a bit indigestible. Having seperate sections for things like 'Controversy and 'Retirement' keeps the 'Racing career' shorter and more readable. The counter-argument to this is that it could remove the 'controversy' parts from their context - I don't think this is a problem at present, what do others think? 4u1e 09:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Notable" contreversy? Who determines what is notable? For schuamchers time in F-1 he has no more notable incidents than any other driver of his era. If I see anything imprtant cut from this the controversy section is going because it's comparatively useless information.Ernham 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Who determines what is notable? That's usually done through developing a consensus on an article's talk page. And please refrain from such rash declarations: they could be construed to mean that you basically consider you own this article, which is specifically forbidden by the guidelines. You alone don't get to decide the content of this article; you in consensus with the other editors do get to decide. Please note the difference.--Ramdrake 22:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to know much about Formula One to know that Schumacher has been involved in controversy. I am a big fan of him, but that's just as it is. It could be discussed if all the incidents listed there are notable, but you can't make a Schumacher article without mentioning the 1994 and 1997 incidents at the last race of the season. Bias should stay at the door when you enter Wikipedia...--Serte 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I don't pretend to know much at all about Formula One racing, so I certainly wouldn't venture to say what is notable and what isn't, but I guess that between all the editors such a determination can be made quite fairly.--Ramdrake 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just note that we don't have to get down to 32 - that's a guideline only. From memory some FAs are around the 45 - 50 mark. --4u1e 07:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How did the template for the results table work out? --4u1e 08:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It didn't. I don't know if our arguments would stand on it. Creating a "template" with a table just for one article and with the table already filled in. That wouldn't really be a template. I'd be aiming for maybe 60+ kb, because, taken out the table and the references, which are not readable prose, occupy more than 25 kb, I'm sure.

We've made big cuts in length by copyediting and moving material to other articles without losing (I feel) significant content. We're probably approaching the end of that route now, so a couple of suggestions:

The 'helmet' section is probably less important than anything else on the page, so should be the next to go. An image of his helmet would give the key info without increasing page size significantly.
Could we move the table of results to a seperate page? Leave a quick summary of wins each year or something and use the {{main}} template to link to a 'list' page giving his entire results. 4u1e 09:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think the 1998 British Grand Prix incident could be removed - it should be mentioned in the article for that race, but as it was legal in itself, I'm not sure it's all that controversial in the context of Schumacher's entire career. The other events are certainly notable enough to be kept. 4u1e 12:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And how about the Personal Life section. Not only it is bad, with information not very organized it also big and things can be deleted. That needs re-building as well. If anyone has any ideias, that'd be good. I already re-did the controversy section, and I think it's good, compared to the previous which was full of POV and Bias and weasel words, and I don't mind redoing the personal life as well. I just don't really know what is notable. Should we mention the film cameos? His road-safety awareness? I really think that could be reduced and it's not the most interesting part of the article.--Serte 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've redone the whole section. It would reduce the size of the article in 3kb, which is quite good. See User:Serte/schumipl and say what you think. My main concern is about the title of the section. Naming it Personal Life would exclude mentions about his film cameos or road safety campaigns. Naming it Family and off-track life may confuse when in the future there will be the need to create a section for his post-retirement life (off-track). Anyway, give your 2 cents about this. Cheers--Serte 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good - we could drop the film appearances I think, In Cars he only says about 3 lines and I'll be surprised if Asterix at the Olympics is any more. Same arrangement as before for any opportunities I can see to re-word?--4u1e 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Go ahead if you want. :) Cheers--Serte 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

5 wins at Monza

I know what you mean - but the words don't say 'only driver to win the Italian Grand Prix five times' - they say 'Only racing driver ever, in any racing class, to win 5 times at Monza'. (My emphasis) That's a very different statement - If someone else has won, say, 6 Formula 3 races at Monza then the record would not be true! The Indy case is different because until about 1992 there was only one race a year there. Even now there are (I think) only three - the Indy 500, the Brickyard 400 and the United States Grand Prix, so we can easily be sure that no-one else has won five events there. It sounds like we don't have any proof of the record as it is worded. I will re-word it to read 'only driver to win the Italian Grand Prix five times' - although I'm not sure that it's all that notable in the overall context. The headline record is his 8 wins in France. --4u1e 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right.--Serte 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New Role

The sentence:

"His role is to scout for young talented drivers for the Ferrari team"

got removed as reference was not provided.

This is the reference:

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=134305 --Cyktsui 12:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --4u1e 13:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ITV quoted Todt saying not that he will do it but that picking drivers is one way he could help: "according to [Todt] [Schumacher's] unique understanding of racing makes [him] the perfect muse in matters of driver selection, sporting decisions and even the direction of the firm's road car plans"[5]

Sorry, I see another ref has been provided. Mark83 13:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

4ule's sentence is much better than the original one I copied from the reference as he said 'in particular' which implies Schumacher will have other roles as well --Cyktsui 10:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

2005-2006

Is the sentence

"There were many on-track problems for Schumacher, including collisions with Mark Webber (Turkish GP), Nick Heidfeld (Australian GP), Takuma Sato (Belgian GP) and Christijan Albers (Chinese GP). He would ultimately finish third in the World Championship standings."

required as it seems to be a bit out of place..... --Cyktsui 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the sentence got removed =) --Cyktsui 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)