Talk:Michael Schumacher/archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

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:

  1. I have never read or heard any comment from Ferrari or Bridgestone claiming the rule changes were aimed at them.
  2. "Fans and commentators" are weasel words. A NUNBER of fans and a NUMBER of commentators maybe.
  3. 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: [1]? 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: [2]

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"[3]
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)

Legacy section - POV strikes back

With all due respect to User:Qwerty1936, this new section he introduced, with the title of Legacy, right after the Other incidents section is a step back on all the work other editors have done. That controversy section was filled with POV, bias and weasel words. It was re-written. Now, look at this:

Legacy

The next few seasons will undoubtedly be labelled the 'post Schumacher era' as the retirement of a front runner, for the last decade, kicks in. An immediate change will be at Ferrari, where a new team setup is already being formed. Kimi Raikkonen has been brought in and was widely thought to be a straight swap for Schumacher and be the number 1 Ferrari driver. However, the emergence of Felipe Massa as a Grand Prix winner has put this into question. With all the controversies throughout Schumacher's career, his lasting legacy as the greatest driver in history may have been compromised. His record has no peer and this suggests he has been the most outstanding racer, who ever competed in the sport. However, many former champions have said his 'win at all costs' attitude may favour drivers such as Fangio and Senna as the gratest driver of all time. Damon Hll and Jackie Stewart have recently criticised Schumacher and Hill claimed that F1 will be a better spectacle without him. It is undeniable though, that Schumacher has been the most successful driver in the history of the sport and his retirement will leave a huge void. It remains to be seen if the sport maintains the same level of interest post Schumacher. The rise of Fernando Alonso suggests he could be the dominant driver of this generation, and replace Schumacher, but the latter's flair and thirst for victory may mean he is unreplaceable and leave a lasting legacy, whether it bepositive or negative.

Italics mean unneeded or not relevant to this article. Bold means POV, Bias Bold and Italics mean weasel words, or not backed by references

I am going to delete this. Either it is written according to the Wikipedia guidelines, or it is not the best for the article. Let's aim for FA and leave our opinions behind. I too believe Schumacher was the best, but I am not putting that into the article, because it's just my opinion. Cheers abd don't take it personally. And I've seen other contributions of yours. You should create a blog and write all that. It's good stuff. It just doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This is about facts...--Serte * Talk * Contribs 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

British media

"Some Formula One reporters and analysts have noted the media's, particularly the British media, attempts to vilify Schumacher and diminish his accomplishments using such controversial incidents.[39]"

Is this section really justified? The reference uses the world vilify, but is there proof of "particularly the British media"? And if the British media is really worse than any other nation's media perhaps we should trace it back to the Hill incident. Mark83 23:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The article refers to the British media in particular: "Today, Schumacher is reaping the rewards of his hard work at Ferrari and it is painful to see the tight upper-lipped British media maul him like this." Although this is true, I'm not sure about the status of such thing in the article.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've played with the words a bit. I'd say the sentence 'Schumacher has been vilified in the British press for such incidents' is pretty much true, and can probably be verified. We could stick 'elements of ....' in there, actually, which would be more accurate. I haven't yet, because that's not what the current ref says.
This Nair guy also ref'd in the same section actually makes an interesting point that Schumacher doesn't always get the credit he deserves, almost because of his domination. I'm not sure Nair has the standing to be used as a ref for this though - does anyone have a better one? I think I can remember Mark Hughes making similar comments in Autosport at some point. 4u1e 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a piece here from Mark Gallagher (an F1 insider, for want of a better term....) at Pitpass.com, which puts a similar view to Nair's. What we're really talking about here is a 'Perceptions of Schumacher' or 'media reactions to Schumacher' piece - but I don't know if we have enough references to pull it off.--4u1e 07:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1991 etc

I should be able to ref the 1991 Schumacher-Jordan-Benetton piece - there's a lengthy section on it in 'The Piranha Club' by Timothy Collings. Might take a couple of days to get round to it though. (You may have noticed that I'm not always the promptest of contributers!) 4u1e. 3 November

I've found a ref, but it is not as good as I wanted. It's still ok for now. It'd be very cool if you find references for the other statements with [citation needed]. They are in the Benetton years and it is difficult to find references online about them. There is one in 2005 about a statement by Schumacher. I've searched a lot, but didn't find it. We'll probably have to remove it. Cheers --Serte * Talk * Contribs 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a first go - there's a lot of other stuff I've left out. Moreno actually won a court case to keep his seat, but (according Eddie Jordan, who is not the most reliable of witnesses) accepted a payment of $500,000 to give it up to Schumacher. I didn't think that was directly relevant, but I should put something in the 1991 Formula One season article. I've also ref'd the bit about Benetton only having traction control from partway through the season - it came from a lengthy discussion with Ernham above. Cheers. --4u1e 15:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also found a ref for the 2005 'weapons' quote. The wording in the article was wrong, so I've amended it to match that given in the reference (The Guardian online). Cheers. --4u1e 15:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversies and Criticisms

The current wording of the first paragraph has a few problems. It current reads:

Some Formula One reporters and analysts have noted the media's, particularly the British media, attempts to vilify Schumacher and diminish his accomplishments using such controversial incidents.
  • 'Some Formula One reporters and analysts' is weasel words.
  • It does not match what the references used say.
- Reference 49 (www.cbc.ca 'Top 10 Michael Schumacher moments') says, referring to the 1994 Adelaide incident, The German driver was vilified in the British press for causing the crash – critics claimed Schumacher, knowing his car was already damaged, intentionally drove back on to the track to try and take Hill out – and the Schumacher-Hill rivalry was born.. It later says, in reference to the 1997 incident, With the Damon Hill incident from 1994 still fresh in everybody's memory, Schumacher was crucified by the press for trying to knock Villeneuve out of the race. (Note, by the way, that this piece is not a very accurate summary - no-one accused Schumacher of driving back onto the circuit to take Hill out!)
- The opinion piece by Vinesh Nair from Sify.com ('Schumacher bashing, a habit of sorts') is about the 2004 season, not one of those covered in the 'Controversy and criticism' section. The article is a bit long to quote directly here. My understanding of it is that that the first para proposes that the reason for the 'sad Schumacher bashing' is that he is not English. The second para suggest that this is why the story heard is how Schumy is hesitant to go on a all out battle with other drivers on the track rather than in the pit lane, and that you would need an Italian writer report his stunning performances accurately. Most of the rest of the piece describes various performances from Schumacher. The second to last para notes his involvement in developing Ferrari. The final para says it is painful to see the tight upper-lipped British media maul him like this. It really is his choice to see whether he has to pass other drivers on the track or in pit lane strategy
  • The current version of the sentence conflates two different points made in the references. The first reference supports a statement that Schumacher was vilified in British media for the 94 and 97 incidents. The second one supports a statement that one commentator feels Schumacher's achievements are unfairly downplayed in the British media not because of 94 and 97, which are not mentioned, but because he is not English.
  • attempts to vilify sounds like a smear campaign - and does not appear in either article.

Based on the references we currently have, I suggest the current sentence should be replaced with: Schumacher has been vilified in the British media for his involvement in title-deciding collisions in 1994 and 1997. Vinesh Nair, Formula One correspondant for Sify.com, has suggested that Schumacher's later achievements have been downplayed by the British media because he is not British

  • I think 'sections of the British media' would be more accurate, but that's not what the current ref says.
  • Vinesh is talking about 'English' not 'British', but I think he actually means British. I haven't noticed any downplaying of the achievements of Jackie Stewart, Jim Clark, David Coulthard etc because they are not English :)

I have changed the article as suggested --4u1e 08:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

TAG?

Quoting from the article:

Benetton was not fully competitive in 1993, with the more advanced and powerful Williams of Hill and Prost or the advanced "TAG" electronic package found in the McLaren of Senna.[citation needed]

If someone can specify this TAG wikilink as it links to a disambiguation page, it'd be good.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Done - it now links to Techniques d'Avant Garde. Bretonbanquet 14:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --4u1e 15:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Shorter Article

I've been bold and deleted the helmet section, as I said above, it's the weakest candidate. We're still up at 79kb (which is around 56kb text, according to Serte above), so I think we need to get a bit more radical. I previously suggested 1998 British Grand Prix (Controversies....) - I don't think this is all that controversial, as regards Schumacher himself, and could therefore be deleted. What do others think?

Well, I'd say 56kb if you take the results table out. If you don't count the references, which aren't readable prose, it'd be even smaller, because this article has more than 70. I agree with the helmet thing, I don't really know what more to reduce, so we have to make choices. Your suggestion for the controversy is good, I wouldn't like to, but maybe we have to do it. I'd also try to remove redundancies in the text, making the text more simple and smaller. Cheers--Serte * Talk * Contribs 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a problem with the cite templates - they use up more space. I don't know what policy is on that. I'll leave the 1998 bit for a while and see if anyone objects to its removal. --4u1e 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made an astonishing discovery. I opened a txt file with Notepad and copied all the code for the page in there. It was 80kb. Just as it says when you edit the article. Then, I opened the article just for reading and copied to notepad only the text parts, and even left all those [1] of the references there. Just didn't copy the table and the references, external links and such. I even copied the Formula One records. I save the file, go check the proprieties and... only 32,4 KB. That's amazing and we have to use it as an argument when FAC comes, because it's not our fault that the table occupies so much and we aren't going to delete references for the sake of space... Cheers--Serte * Talk * Contribs 16:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what the policy is for that. Any more expert views? We could try fishing for views in the peer review? 4u1e

From WP:SIZE "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases;" "Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: external links, further reading, references, footnotes, see also, and similar sections; tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting."

Readable prose should be 32 kb. If you take out of this article the tables (complete results), the see also, external links, the footnotes and references, you get those 32kb. Let's do fact check on what's needed and apply for FA. This is a very argument and it is going to be an issued raised on FAC.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 14:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case we're OK for length, aren't we? I'd still suggest going through GA before FA - the waiting list looks quite short at the moment, and I've found it valuable before in terms of getting more views. 4u1e

When do we do it, then?--Serte * Talk * Contribs 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The the creation of the unique helmet sounds important enough to include, for sure. For more than the nonsense about "team orders" which have been around in F1 for ever.Ernham 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right Ernham, team orders were always legal and accepted in F1. The interesting point here is that Ferrari's use of them to assist Schumacher (completely legal and with plenty of precedent) became the factor in 2004 which resulted in the FIA banning them. Definitely a significant controversy - which does not mean of course that Schumacher was in the wrong. --4u1e 20:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Weather (spelling?) you like it or not, those controversial incidents are a big part of Schumacher's career and fairly or not, he'll be remembered for them too, not only for the 7 titles or all the records.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Adelaide Incident

This has recently been expanded a little (Hi, Skully!). Can I propose that we cut it back again?

My reasoning is as follows:

  • Given the nature of Wikipedia, this incident appears in several places.
  • The wording of the various versions differs, as does the level of detail.
  • The most detailed version should be in the 1994 Australian Grand Prix article, which has nothing at present. I think this article should go into the full depth of the incident, not only because this is its more natural home, but also because it's a more neutral place for it.
  • The Damon Hill and Michael Schumacher articles should both have a brief, neutral description - in fact they should both have the same description. Both articles have less space to spare to go into the full depth (because they have to cover other things) and both are more prone to being edited in a POV manner by fans/anti-fans of the drivers.
  • A brief, neutral description should also go in the 1994 Formula One season article. This would perhaps focus more on reaction to the incident, not the collision itself.
  • At the moment what we have is the most detailed account in the Damon Hill and 2004 season articles, although the details differ between them. Michael Schumacher has the next most detailed description, and the actual race article has nothing at all.

What do you think? Can we work across the four articles to get a balanced approach? Cheers. 4u1e. 6 November 2006.

Yeah, sorry. I just didn't like how it was written in some places. Plus a few things that I thought needed to be explained for those who aren't F1 fans or who haven't heard of this incident. Of course the main problem for me is finding out why people though Schu's car was damaged, personally, the proof can be seen prior to the incident, after he hit the barrier, because if you look Schumacher is steering his car to the left - curious, as this action appears to keep the car in the straight line. Anyway, once again, sorry for any troubles that I have potentially caused. I'll try and do a detailed report on the incident in it's respected article.--Skully Collins 11:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No worries. (As they say in Oz). I'd be grateful for your help in agreeing a definitive (short!) version which can be used in both the Damon Hill and Michael Schumacher articles - meanwhile the 1994 one can cover all angles in much more detail than can be spared here. Keep up the good work!. 4u1e
I don't really like that "suggesting that his car was damaged". Doesn't look very encyclopedic. Cheers--Serte * Talk * Contribs 14:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's one of the bits I think should be covered in depth in the 1994 Australian Grand Prix article - it's very hard to summarise it briefly and in a neutral way. My suggestion is that we leave it out from here, going more or less back to how the para was yesterday. 4u1e

Billionaire?

A lot of web sites and news stories call him a billionaire. However I've searched for an estimate of his fortune and the only one I've come up with so far is $800m/£420m/€626. [4]

A lot of the sites quoting billionaire have "according to Euro Business". Anybody know more about that? Mark83 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

According to: [5], his salaries ALONE over all the career were worth more than £300m and he was earning up to £60m in merchandising (i assume advertising as well) in its height.
[6] also says 800 million dollars and that he donated 50 million dollars in the last 4 years.
[7] lists Schumacher annual play as $56m. --Serte * Talk * Contribs 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't use estimates based on his income to justify the term 'billionaire' - that would be WP:OR. For all we know he's wasted it all on wine, women and song. Or charitable causes, for that matter. Does the ref for the $80M salary not cover this point as well? --4u1e 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is enough anyway. When do we apply for GA, my friend? :P Cheers--Serte * Talk * Contribs 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that, provided we either reference or remove the remaining {{fact}} tags, and provided the article remains stable then it would pass GA now. GA assessments are done by just one person, so it depends to a certain extent on who does the review. Some people are a bit touchy about having items up for review in more than one place at a time, so if we're going to put it up for GA then we should probably take it out of peer review - I think we've probably got all the comments we're going to get anyway.

As far as FA goes, I think there are two major things: Continue to refine the writing (it's supposed to be 'brilliant'!) and work on the references. I know most of the article is referenced now, but I think for FA more of the references should be from hardcopy (see Brabham, for what I hope is a good standard of references to aim for) and less of them should be the slightly dubious syndicated stories from non-specialists that we've all been using enthusiastically to date!--4u1e 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I think the lead needs re-writing to be a summary of the article. I think there are still things in the lead that don't appear in the article. --4u1e 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That "popularized sport in Germany" thing it's in the lead and it's not developed in the article. Because of that, I once moved it from the lead to the Formula One career section so that the lead does not talk of something that is not present in the article. However, it was put back in the lead even though:
  1. -It is not mentioned in the rest of the article
  2. -Makes the lead too big.
  3. -Isn't really that notable. Every country where there is a successful sportsman, the importance of the sport tends to increase, and more kids start practicing and such. It's not that much of a feat to be in the lead. If we reach a consensus on this, it would be good to just move on and get this ready. As to references from books... I have none about Schumi, nor F1, so I won't be able to contribute with that, but after having all [citation needed] done and prose re-checked I'd put it in for FAC anyway and see what they say.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 23:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think GA is a good idea. It will provide new perspective(s) for us to work on to improve the article. FAC not for a month or two - the article is far from stable. Give it a while and those with only a passing interest will move on. (I don't mean any disrespect to any editor btw). As for the "popularized sport in Germany" bit. I think it should be moved from the intro, BUT kept in the article. I think the important part is that he made the sport popular in a country where it wasn't previously. i.e. vs. making a popular sport more popular. And the only reason there was conflict over the passage was due to a certain editor who is revert-happy and prone to hurling the word "vandal" about.Mark83 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of keeping in the article as well, that's why when I removed it from the lead I put it in the Formula One Career section. If 4u1e agrees on this too, we could change it and hope nobody disrupts consensus obtained thorough conversations in the talk page.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the popularising F1 in Germany should go in the main body of the article. I'd keep a brief mention in the lead too, if there's room, but there may not be. There's a couple of other minor 'orphan' points in the lead that can be worked into the main text as well (GPDA and 'first German driver to....').

Similarly, controversy is not mentioned in the lead, and should be - regardless of whether Schumacher is right or wrong, maligned or malign, those incidents are one of the things people 'know' (think they know?) about him and should be mentioned there. Is there room to squeeze his influence in turning Ferrari round into the lead as well? I'll start having a go at it - as always feel free to reverse changes and discuss here! 4u1e 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Had a first go. Feel free to rip it apart. 4u1e 13:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It's too long - I know! Can we lose, for example - the nicknames (move to section with Regenkonig etc) and Presidency of the GPDA? 4u1e 13:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even check the page as it is right now, I'm reading this first, but anyway, (to me) feel free to move the presidency of the GPDA. I didn't even remembered that when I started working on the article and I feel it's not major to be in the lead and would be better in other part of the article.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it now. Too big as you said.
  1. -I'd either move or reduce the part of winning with benetton and transformation of ferrari. You say he won two championships with benetton and that he moved to ferrarri and made a big transformation but do not even mention what he did there: winning 5 championships. it's too big.
  2. -Rmv GPDA
  3. -maybe all the germany thing
  4. -Schumacher has been accused of unsporting behaviour on the track. - Isn't this POV or weasel? Has been accused? By whom? That part needs re-writing. Go with the facts: he was involved in two championship deciding collisions and was disqualified once. Nobody can argue with that.
  5. -on retirement, remove "after winning the Italian Grand Prix, " as this is not very important and is stated later on the retirement section. Lead is not for details

Some of the stuff may cost to delete, but the lead is not the article: the things will stay in the article, it's just that some things are more important than other to introduce the subject to people who don't know much about him. Cheers --Serte * Talk * Contribs 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - let's have a go.....--4u1e 17:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
OK - v2.0 now done. I think that's short enough now, WP:LS says 3-4 paragraphs, we now have four. --4u1e 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No more [citation needed] 's. Let's GA this? --Serte * Talk * Contribs 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! --4u1e 20:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fashion sense

Schumacher is well known to have an, eh.. "interesting" choice in clothes. A possible addition or far too trivial? Probably the latter. Mark83 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's to say whether his taste is good or bad? (I know what I think, but fear I may not be NPOV on this one) I know the article's meant to be comprehensive, but I reckon we'll get away with leaving that one out! Cheers
You should read this month's F1 Racing - damning evidence :-) I know I brought it up, but I think best leave it out. Mark83 08:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Schumacher_archive_7_1a19.html"