Talk:Kimi Räikkönen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks or consult the project page for further information.
WikiProject Formula One


Why do people constantly write Räikkönen's surname in the wrong way, i.e. "Raikkonen"? It is not the preferred spelling, not even an acceptable one. This is not a book, movie, city or country, where different spellings are used in different language-speaking areas. This is an individual person, and their names (particularly when using the same script as the language spoken) have fixed spellings. If you merely don't know how to type ä and ö on your keyboard, copy&paste them from an earlier mention, or write them as ä and ö. If you're on some Holy War to remove accented letters from the face of the Earth, bring the issue up on the Village Pump or another discussion forum. — JIP | Talk 11:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Räikkönen/Raikkonen's own website doesn't use accented letters, so calm down. Mark83 10:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Is the website written by Räikkönen himself? I very much doubt he'd spell his own name that way. Websites, even official ones, are not an authoritative source for people's names. Besides, even if Räikkönen wrote the website himself, I figure the reason for "Raikkonen" is only to avoid technical problems, not because it's an acceptable spelling. — JIP | Talk 10:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure he doesn't write it himself. In any case accenting it correctly is the ideal, but given that the BBC and ITV in the UK don't, you cant blame some for not picking up on this. Mark83 15:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Websites, even official ones, are not an authoritative source for people's names. So why should this one be any different?
However, no source has been given for the spelling 'Räikkönen'. Just because that is the 'correct' spelling of Räikkönen does not mean that it is the correct one to use (although it probably is). Further, given the use of Flash on the website, it would have been trivial to ensure that the accents were in place.

Contents

[edit] Bias

This meant Räikkönen did not race; though, team boss Ron Dennis has stated that they had to physically restrain him from racing, in spite of Raikkonen being aware of the dangers involved - displaying, yet again, the marvellous courage that endeared him to many, after his refusal to play it safe in the European Grand Prix.

Biased much? That's not courage, that's stupidity and being desperate for points to beat a rival who was almost certainly not going to race.

The most monumental of wins was secured when he overtook Renault driver Giancarlo Fisichella on the final lap. This unique and memorable drive brought tears to the eyes of Mclaren boss Ron Dennis, and was made even more special for the Finn by the fact that he beat World Champion Fernando Alonso in a straight fight I agree it was a great pass, but this is supposed to read like an encyclopedia article, not Finnish Boys Racer Weekly. That last sentence is fluff.63.169.219.130 03:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Surely the bit about him being the "best driver of the current era" is the most blatant piece of bias possible and should be removed?

[edit] Yes!

I've just finished removing some blatant points of view and I'm glad to see someone already agrees with me. Regarding Ron Dennis restraining him - I don't see how that's possible. Räikkönen was on his own in his car and drove it into his garage, I didn't see Ron out on the track with his tow truck making sure he did that!

Other pieces I've removed:

  • "...driving a superb race"
  • "However, Räikkönen was soon back to winning ways"
  • "Kimi once again experienced some poor luck" (this one isn't that bad, just sounds like we're sympathising)
  • "With some masterful strategy from the McLaren team"
  • "...when he tragically suffered.."
  • ""Kimi Räikkönen's blistering pole position time"
  • "symptomatic of the horrendous luck he's endured"
  • (About JPM) "who displayed a beautifully driven flying lap"
  • Numerous instances of "Mclaren" changed to McLaren
  • Even calling someone by their first name in articles bothers me. Would you edit the article on the current President of the United States thus: "George is attempting to push through controversial legislation"? No way! Bush or George Bush is the acceptable term. Mark83 23:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, "President Bush" or "President George Bush" are the acceptable terms as respect for the guy's title (even for foreigners, even if you disagree with him), not "George", not "Bush", not "George Bush". Just like "Mr. Räikkönen" is the proper way to show respect for himself and his family. 219.198.68.23 09:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Have to disagree. Using "Bush" or "Räikkönen" is not disrespectful in the context of an enclyopedia and IS the accepted term, see the article. Mark83 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in the article

I have recently changed some things in the initial paragraph where things like "Raikonnen and his less than enthusiastic comentaries" made the article appear as biased in fact showing POV in wikipedia articles....

While I respect other people's opinion I have to say that information like height and weight is expected to be found in web sites like F1-live but it is irrelevant to wikipedia as we are not discussing how competitive a driver can be by being lighter and less tall.

Some aditions I've made have been reverted by 202.80.59.3, while I do thing they need to be improved in terms of gramar perhaps or being little bit more straight forward I do think as well they need to appear there as this web site is accesed by people who often don't follow the F1... I'll revert once again the changes as by wednesday but stll they are subject of editing or removal... perhaps we could discuss what are the things that need to be changed

[edit] 2005

The current section on his 2005 season is poorly written and very POV. An earlier version was much better, in my opinion. I tried to revert to that a few weeks earlier, but it was reverted again, with the comments that it was POV and "too long". (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimi_R%C3%A4ikk%C3%B6nen&diff=32150149&oldid=32071089) It certainly was less POV than the current version. And what's wrong in a section being long, as long as it contains relevant info? Great Red Spot 07:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please write it yourself, make it a summary not a timeline race by race, tell the big story, point out what is exactly POV and why is poorly written. C trillos
"His cool and consistant performances were accompanied by his speed and aggresiveness, thus becoming a title contender. Had it not been for some bad luck and the speed of his rival Fernando Alonso he could have been World Champion."
This is POV.
"Even in these circumstances the McLaren Mercedes star stormed the field with perfect qualifying laps..."
Also POV.
"The season progressed and team orders were present in both McLaren and Renault."
When you make such a statement, shouldn't you back it up with some instances? I got the distinct impression that Renault used team orders a lot more than McLaren did. But then, that is also POV as it is merely my impression and not based on any evidence.
"Although the championship was very much a story of Räikkönen chasing Fernando Alonso in the points table, both were very reliable making both just one mistake each during the season."
Inaccurate. Off the top of my head, I remember Räikkönen stalling on the grid in Australia, and making mistakes in qualifying in Bahrain, Brazil and China. Alonso messed up Hungary first with a mistake in qualifying and then with an over-optimistic move down Ralph Schumacher's inside. He also went off track a few times in the European GP. Then there was the mistake in the German GP during qualifying.
The reason I feel the section is poorly written is that it does not provide a lot of information about Räikkönen's season. It instead replaces them with statments like "Reliability problems were not uncommon in Räikkönen's car as the Mercedes Benz engine blew up several times in practice." Why not give the relevant details and leave the reader to decide for himself whether Räikkönen suffered from "bad luck" or not? The earlier version that I've referred to above, I felt, gave much more information than the current one - all in all, it told the "big story" a whole lot better than the current version. Great Red Spot 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
All right, as I told you, you can do it yourself. The last version failed to be a summary, this version fails to be neutral and it lacks of important data, the last version was even more plagued with POV than this one... things like magnificent performances from Kimi and so on.... What I'm trying to point out is the fact that there is no reason to revert to a previous version, instead the section most be either improved or totally rewritten from scratch. C trillos
I've rewritten a lot of the previous version now. Great Red Spot 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One results

first, It's gotta be shown in another format... a table or something.

Second, I don't think it is relevant to include non-podium finishes

third, too long!!

Someone who knows how to add a table like style is needed (cuz I don't know)

C trillos

[edit] POV

Since when does something being "POV" constitute the need for change? Who are you to say that information placed on a website with good intentions is "POV"?

When it reads more like a comic book ("The Exciting Adventures of Kimi!") and less like an encyclopedia article, you probably need to watch for POV. This should be self-evident. Substitute "good intentions" with "journalistic style" and you will be on the right path. Use your Geocities page for your fansite and leave the credibility in Wikipedia.

[edit] Tyre changes

"Opinion is divided as to whether he should have persevered on the track or rather pitted for a tire change and a relatively safe third place - however this is a moot point as tire changes were not allowed in 2005, though this incident resulted in a rules modification allowing teams to make one safety-related tire change per Grand Prix." (From the 2005 season bit)

This doesn't match with my recollection. I don't think the rules ever said that you couldn't change tyres under any circumstances, which is the implication here. I don't think therefore that it is a moot point, and that everything from "however, this is a moot point" can be deleted.

Anyone got a race report from the time? 4u1e

And come to think of it - I don't think there was ever a rule that 'allowed teams to make one safety related tyre change per Grand Prix' - wasn't it just worded around safety and force majeure? 4u1e

You're right - the rule said that only "a punctured or damaged tyre" could only be changed, but was vague on what was a damaged tire. Nobody knew if a flatspot was enough. There was no rule change after the race, and there was no limit on the number of legitimate changes allowed. http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14922.html --Don Speekingleesh 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Amended as proposed. 3 August 2006 4u1e

This accident did, in part, lead into a rule change/clarification. It only happened two months later [1]. I brought back the "moot point" part, modified and clarified. There's no need to delete the whole part, as the lack of clear info did affect many teams struggling with flat-spotted tyres. And this: "Raikonnen could have changed a tyre legally under the rules at the time" certainly isn't true. Prolog 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on interpretation, not an amendment. Still not a 'moot point'. A moot point mean the question is hypothetical, implying that McLaren absolutely could not have changed the tyre and so there is no point debating whether they should have. This is not true. Teams were allowed to change 'dangerous' tyres, but McLaren chose not to as they were uncertain whether their tyre was damaged enough to be considered dangerous (yes this was a dumb rule!) and didn't want to take their chances with the FIA's interpretation of the rule. I don't object to the rest of the paragraph, but have deleted 'moot point' as this is an incorrect application of this phrase. --4u1e 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ability POV

"he is probably the best driver in the current era of the sport however due to a series of technical failures and other drivers mistakes has not yet reached his full potential" (From the summary at the top)

Surely this is blatant fan POV? What makes the best driver anyway? Wins: not him. Championships: not him. Poles: not him.

Surely the "best" title is way too subjective? swishfish

[edit] Fact

One can do no better than Strunk. See page 46. "Use this word only of matter capable of direct verification, not of matters of judgment." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cia123454321 (talk • contribs) .

Im not sure what you're referring to here. Perhaps you could explain. Thanks. Mark83 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many of the profiles of today's drivers are dripping with subjective assertions, rather than facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cia123454321 (talk • contribs) .

Indeed, and that's why I reverted your edit. Additions like occasional episode of brain fade and He leaves McLaren with something of a reputation among his fans as a car breaker are not facts, but subjective opinions and original research. Prolog 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Raikkonen has one of the worst records of mechanical and other dnfs. I suggest you find some wiccian acceptable way of pointing this out to the reader. I think the entire wiccian reversion is a slimly way of the old-timers getting their way. It's as distasteful as the founder being caught enhancing his own bio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cia123454321 (talk • contribs) .

Consistent reliability issues of McLaren-Mercedes are covered well in the 2005 section, at least. If you want to speculate with "brain fades" and "engine breaking", I suggest you find some reliable sources and read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Thanks, Prolog 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It is largely a car, not driver issue. If you can find an authoritative source that says Räikkönen is hard on his car, great, it would be very interesting to many readers. But without such a source it cannot feature here. Mark83 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/m/Talk%7EKimi_R%C3%A4ikk%C3%B6nen_f82a.html"