Talk:Michael Schumacher/archive 8

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

Good article passed

An easy decision. I think the fact that the article has been through Peer Review helped. A potential featured candidate. Oldelpaso 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good thing. Me and other people worked hard to get this article better and GA status is a big step. FA will be hard, but why not trying? What do people here think the article needs to get there? Give your suggestions... Cheers --Serte * Talk * Contribs 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well done all. For FA - if we're looking to make this a really good article - the quality of the references needs to be improved. We've had discussions above about some of the news articles we've used where the reporting is perhaps not of a particularly high quality. While I believe we've accurately addressed the subject, a featured article ought really to be drawn from the best sources. A quick search of Amazon shows that there is plenty of material available.....it's just getting hold of it! 4u1e 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well done! Agree, for FA, references from books are more reliable than simply from the internet. --Cyktsui 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst it's true most books are reliable, books written by respected F1 journalists are the ultimate source. Alexj2002 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are the ones I meant - for this case, any of the more respectable biographies and the Autocourse season summaries would do very well. I've got some of the latter now, so I suppose I should employ them, but I don't have any books speicfically on Schumacher (I think The Piranha Club is probably a good ref for Schumacher's transfer from Jordan to Benetton, by the way). 4u1e

Now we should look for what improvement is required to make it a FA, any suggestions? --Cyktsui 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Infringement Records

Can't help but notice that his records sections fails to mention that Schumacher also holds records for cheating, rule infringements, exclusions and disqualification. these may not sit well with his fans but are valid and correct records none the less, as so it would be only good practice to include them with equal weight. -f1man

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.124.16.28 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

If you can find reliable, authoritative sources (see WP:RS) which state that Schumacher holds records for those things - i.e. a source which has compared all F1 drivers - then feel free to add it. 4u1e 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


the source is simple, just look at any f1 driver records page, there are hundreds online and see if any other driver has that many disqualified or excluded after his name, i can tell you for a fact no one does, so the point of the first poster still stands, i would edit it myself but there's no point since it would just be turned back by Schumacher fans within the hour. Truth is the more you know about F1 the less impressive Schumacher becomes and no amount of bias encyclopaedia articles can change what the the F1 fans know. ----- Mike

Mike, strictly speaking, if you want to change the article, the onus is on you to find the evidence to support the changes - from the language used I don't think the original comment was intended as a serious constructive suggestion. Ideally the supporting evidence would be a referenced statement from a reputable source (Autocourse season review, Autosport, a biography of MS or history of F1, FIA website).
Looking at whether MS has been DSQ/EXC more often than any other driver, see this link www.chicanef1.com. The list of driver disqualifications puts 12 drivers ahead of Schumacher. Admittedly three of those (Brundle, Johannson and Bellof) were disqualified from an entire season for, if anything, misdemeanours by their Tyrrell team in 1984. Nonetheless Takuma Sato, John Watson and Nigel Mansell, to take only 3 examples, all have 3 DSQs to their names. Schumacher has been DSQ only twice. Schumacher is the only driver to have been excluded from the results of a world championship, but this is (or was last time I looked) mentioned in the lead and in the article itself. (Edit: Yes, mentioned in lead, and a whole section in the article). Schumacher was also excluded from two races in 1994 - I haven't yet found a list of driver exclusions, but two isn't particularly high. 4u1e 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Eddie Irvine was excluded from 3 races in 1994, after being judged to have caused an accident at the Brazilian Grand Prix (see www.grandprix.com). So we can't say that Schumacher holds a 'record' for most exclusions either. 4u1e 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to Brundle, Johannson and Bellof they were not excluded 'cos of their own doing since it was the car that was illegal (still up for debate) as opposed to 1997 where is was Schumacher alone, so looking at the above Schumacher has been excluded from about 19 races which appears to be a record. if not "Schumacher is the only driver to have been excluded from the results of a world championship" alone makes it a record which should be shown on the list, since afterall other stats are mentioned in the introduction alex

Re Brundle, Johansson and Bellof: Correct, as I mentioned in my initial assessment. However, Schumacher has not been excluded from 19 races. Weird as it may be, illogical as it may be, the only thing Schumacher was disqualified from in 1997 was the final championship standings, his points and race results still stand - he wasn't disqualified from any races that year. As I said above his totals over his career are 3 DSQs and 2 EX, which is not a record, as far as I can see. Schumacher's exclusion from the championship results is mentioned in the introduction and at length in the text - so I'm not sure what you think would be added by putting something in the list of records. Happy to discuss further. 4u1e 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


1997 offical results


Pos Driver Nationality Team Points

1 Jacques Villeneuve Canadian Williams-Renault 81 2 Heinz-Harald Frentzen German Williams-Renault 42 3 David Coulthard British McLaren-Mercedes 36 4 Jean Alesi French Benetton-Renault 36 5 Gerhard Berger Austrian Benetton-Renault 27

Therefore this is a major blackhole since at the same time his results both stand and don't stand, still i agree with the above poster that being the only driver to be excluded from a season is a valid record and should be put in the records section like any other. ------- John Davies

Is it John or Alexander? The comments above (signed John Davies) were made by Alexanderleo (see page history) at 19:49 on 4th Feb (GMT). I guess John may be your name in real life? Anyhow, the decision made by the FIA is, exactly as you say, that his results both stand and don't stand. If we're looking at the number of races he was excluded from, they stand. If we're looking at his championship position that year, they don't stand. See the Official Formula 1 website. Schumacher doesn't appear on the championship result list, but he does appear in all of the race results. His official tally of wins includes all those he took that season. 4u1e 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro too long?

It's my opinion that, if this article is to get FA status, the intro has to be shortened. I think it's just too long at the moment to become FA, so I propose to shorten it? Any objections? Manipe 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think 4 paragraphs is according to the guidelines and it describes the essential for someone who doesn't know him.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Information from F1 Racing magazine Schumacher Tribute Issue

There is a lot of information in this (December 2006 issue) which could be added if it won't make the article too long. I will add where appropriateThe Dunnie 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Schumacher's exclusion from 1997 championship

user:Ernham has suggested that mention of Schumacher's exclusion from the results of the 1997 championship is redundant in the lead. I suggest that since Schumacher is, I think, the only driver ever to have been subject to such a punishment, the fact is very notable and should be mentioned here (this logic stands regardless of whether you believe the punishment to be justified or not). The section also stands for a summary of the 'Controversy section' - the lead is supposed to summarise the content of the article and this is not otherwise mentioned in the lead. What do other editors think? 4u1e 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree and that's a part for which Schumacher will be remebered, like it or not, and I admit it, even though I'm a big fan of him. Already discussed this, I think...--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

<anonym> The part refering to the 1997 is totally out of context, if the biased editors of this page don't like to correct that it is not the readers problem. If there is a review year by year why speak of one concrete year? you don't say that in 2004 he had lots of records ,do you? Do you say he won 5 championships in a row? or 6 constructors championships? You don't do that because you speak about that later, then it is the same for the comment about the collision with JV in 1997. 12 January 2006

It needs to be covered in the article, I don't think it belongs in the lead. It's not what most people will remember him for. -- Ian Dalziel 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it's what I remember him for (and sublime driving, to be fair!) - most of the media stories when he retired covered this aspect, didn't they? It is a unique occurence, which seems notable enough for the lead. If not the 1997 incident in particular, then the controversy angle does need to be covered - according to WP:LEAD the lead needs to summarise the whole article, "describing its notable controversies, if there are any" and we have quite a lot of material on this aspect. Serte and I did already discuss this in the run up to GA, but that's not to say that a different consensus cannot prevail now. I'm personally happy for it to be a summary of all the controversy, not just the 1997 incident, if that makes any difference, the 97 one just seemed the best one to represent the topic. Any other views? 4u1e 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's important, it's a major infraction. I bet the Maradona article has the hand of god in the lead...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the cocaine is there....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No mention of dubious driving tactics in the lead to Ayrton Senna. -- Ian Dalziel 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ian, the lead to the Senna article reads, in its entirety: "Ayrton Senna da Silva (IPA: [ˈayɛrton ˈsɛnnɐ dɐ ˈsilvɐ]) (March 21, 1960–May 1, 1994), better known as Ayrton Senna, was a Brazilian Formula One triple world champion. He died whilst leading the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix at Imola." That falls a very long way short of meeting the Wikipedia guidelines, which as I said above, say the lead needs to summarise the whole article. The article as a whole is probably not a good example to follow here. At the end of the day, the question isn't really which other articles we should follow (although if we're looking for models they should be the two FA articles - Damon Hill and Alain Prost), but what the guidelines and our judgement say should be in the lead.4u1e 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. I think there is currently too much detail in the lead, though. -- Ian Dalziel 12:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a bit snappy there! Too many topics or too much detail on those topics? The guidelines are quite clear on summarising the whole article (It suggests trying to include a sentence or phrase on all headings, although I think that's going a bit far!). I can try re-writing it with the same coverage but shorter, although I think it's fairly compact as it is. 4u1e 03:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(Re-indent) Looking at the lead, I'd quite happily remove the mention of popularising the sport in Germany and of being the most popular driver in F1, neither of which are major themes of the article, as well as a little of the detail in the second paragraph (Do we really need to mention Jody Scheckter, for example?). That's just my view, and the content of the lead has been quite contentious in the past, so I'd like some consensus before I change it. Views? 4u1e 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Family and off-track life

What do you all think of the sentence

It was later revealed that a bodyguard who worked for him, Burkhard Cramer, and his two sons had died in the event, while on holiday in Phuket, Thailand.

I am not too sure how relevant it is for the article. Should we remove it or should it stay? --Cyktsui 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is there, because it kind of justifies why he gave so much money for the tsunami, more money than many countries... I think it should stay, but I'll have no problems if it is removed.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In one of the edits, Ernham has removed the sentence as I have suggested. Could we arrive a conclusion if the sentence should stay? --Cyktsui 12:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the information is useful, Serte's odd assertion notwithstanding. Schumacher sure must be losing friends all over the world, and in the poorest of countries(what great vacation spots!), if we are to follow his thoughts to their logical conclusion. This was just a sad attempt at character assassination, a speciality among British editors of this wikiErnham 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed personally, that's the reason I brought it up. However, as the article has achieved GA status, I would like to have other's opinion before removing something as it is quite painful to add the information back in later on. Unfortunatley, seems like other than Serte, noone has expressed his/her thought. Therefore, I would prefer waiting for other's comment before removing it. --Cyktsui 13:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, about the POV

He stated his interest in these various efforts was piqued both by his love for children and the fact no one else seemed to be interested in helping these causes.

I do not seem to be able to find the reference for it. Just the bit that no one else seemed to be interested in helping these causes sounds a bit POV, unless it's a direct quote from him. Would you please point out where do you get the info, and if you could , please include the reference? Thanks --Cyktsui 13:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4808&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html That should work.Ernham 13:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Never heard of does not mean no one else seemed to be interestd in helping these causes. It just sounds a bit POV and informal for me. Any thoughts? --Cyktsui 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that, actually. My prarphrase was too broad. I'm going to change the wording.Ernham 08:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes, it looks so much better now. Any thoughts on the first part of the sentence, which does not seem to be a complete sentence? --Cyktsui 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on mention of 1997 in lead

<Anonym>If you don't have the reference it should not be there.

biased editors!!!! 1997 in an introduction INCREDIBLE!

<anonym> The part refering to the 1997 is totally out of context, if the biased editors of this page don't like to correct that it is not the readers problem. If there is a review year by year why speak of one concrete year? you don't say that in 2004 he had lots of records ,do you? Do you say he won 5 championships in a row? or 6 constructors championships? You don't do that because you speak about that later, then it is the same for the comment about the collision with JV in 1997.

BIASED EDITORS SPEAKING ABOUT FA ARTICLE INSTEAD OF IMPROVING THIS ONE!

I've moved what I take to be comments by the same person to here to tidy things up. To answer your points:
  • The comment in the lead about 1997 is referenced when it is dealt with in full later on in the article. It is usually considered a significant point in Schumacher's career, for example James Allen's book Michael Schumacher : Driven to extremes, takes it as its main theme. (Allen is not anti-Schumacher as far as I can see, and the book is not negative).
  • Schumacher's total 7 championships and 5 in a row are mentioned in the lead. The fact that he holds nearly every record in F1 is also there - as you say, it is the same as for the collision with JV.
  • The lead is supposed to summarise the whole article. We have a section called 'Controversy'. How can we not mention the only driver ever to be excluded from a season's championship results? 4u1e 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit of a strawman. The question isn't if '97 is significant enough to warrant inclusion. The question is: is it important enough to warrant inclusion in the intro? There are several sections in the body that do not get summarized in the intro, so that dog don't hunt.Ernham 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Ernham has removed the mention of 1997 in the lead again, without further debate here. All those who contributed to the debate seem to have either agreed or come round to this point of view (hope I'm not misrepresenting you, Ian? Correct me if so). I also note that last night's anon editor thought it should be removed. The point of the exercise is consensus (a position agreed by all) so I guess we need to go through this again, with all those who wish to change the lead contributing to the discussion.
Note: Ernham has also removed the British GP from the controversies section. I'm inclined to agree on this one, as I think I suggested before somewhere, it was the team rather than him that was 'controversial' on that one. Views? 4u1e 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the intro, period. Though I must say I'm surprised the rest of this wiki has held up so well after I stopped contributing frequently. Surprising.Ernham 09:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd sooner see a more general statement in the lead - that there has been repeated controversy about his driving ethics, for instance. Detailed incidents belong where there is space to give a balanced description. I certainly don't think all mention should be removed without consensus, though.
And I do think the British GP belongs in the controversies section. Although I think Michael was personally hard done by in a couple of ways, there certainly was - and still is - considerable controversy. -- Ian Dalziel 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, is the controversy? I'm all ears, really? This was a case of incompetent stewards. The controversy, if any, is directed towards the FIA, and issues regarding it should either be on that wiki or the race/racetrack wiki, but not here.Ernham 11:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Lead says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." And Erhnam, you believe comparatively minor points such as him scouting for new drivers should stay but a very notable incident (whatever your POV regarding right or wrong) should be removed? I'm not following that logic. Mark83 13:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(posted after edit conflict)

I think we meet the requirements of WP:LEAD provided controversy about Schumacher's driving is mentioned. The bit of the guidance I'm thinking of here is: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This is followed by "The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:
  • In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
  • The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
  • A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
  • Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs."
Working on that basis the main points mentioned in the lead should be:
  • Early life (which includes pre-F1 career) (10%)
  • Summary of Racing career (50%)
  • Controversies and criticism (20%)
  • Family and off track life (10%)
  • Formula One records (10%)
Percentages are my very rough estimates of how much coverage we have in the article - not accurate, could be argued up or down, but I think the relative picture is recognisable. The work of many different editors (with many different views!) has left us with an article that has a fairly significant chunk on the topic, although nothing like as long as it once was. To answer Ernham's point about dogs hunting, 'Controversies and criticism' is the second longest section in the article. That other, shorter sections are missing doesn't mean that this should be left out as well. Going by the wiki guidelines then, we've got to have something significant on controversies and criticism in the lead. (The other missing bits, 'Early life' and 'family and off track life', should also be worked in.
Regarding exactly what should be mentioned, Jerez 97 is the most controversial of several incidents, but I'm personally happy with having something more general on the topic. I see Ernham has just (14:13 or so) had a go at a re-write. What do others think? 4u1e 14:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Relative weight of the section is quite short. I think it's a fair first sentence (although I find the language a bit +POV , is that just me?). How about another sentence saying what it is that people have found controversial about him? 4u1e 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed it awhile ago, after having read that lead section myself. It's a general statement that tangents on '97, easily the biggest controversy regarding schuamcher. I'm not sure I care much about the "percent" of the various topics within the wiki that is correlated with the representation in the intro. Half of the "controversy" section does not even belong in the wiki at all, let alone warrant any kind of inclusion in the intro. Comparing Schuamcher to other Formula one drivers of his era clealry demonstartes and anti-schumacher bias in regards to this matter on wikipedia. Coulthard has nothing about controversy in his wiki whatsoever, despite constantly being mired in team issues/orders, controversial collisions(one of which could have easily killed him and schuamcher), and things like assaulting other drivers (grabbed Massa by the throat), disrespecting other drivers(flipped off schuamcher). Yet, for some reason, there is nothing there on his wiki. I really don't care, because I really don't think most of that belongs in those other wikis, nor do I believe most of the garbage bogusly labeled as "controversy" belongs here either. Ernham 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If people are still arguing about it, it's hardly bogus to call it controversy, whatever your own opinion is. -- Ian Dalziel 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh? People arguing over something has nothing to do with whether or not something is controversial. '97 incident was easily the most controversial incident, though no one argues about it. Team orders, for instance, do not belong in here, though in that case team orders themselves have been controversial-- in regards to their employment at all, not specific drivers, meaning the actual controversy revolves around team orders specifically, not the drivers that have employed them. The stewards screwing up at the British GP does not belong. Again, nothing to do with the driver, all to do with the governing body that allowed it to happen. It's only controversial because you and your ilk have an axe to grind that has jingoist engraved on the hilt. Ernham 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[[1]] -- Ian Dalziel 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair point Ian (although Ernham's strictly correct in a narrow sense: everyone believes Schumacher to have been at fault for Jerez 97 so there's no controversy there :-) There is of course a wider controversy about his general approach to driving, of which Jerez was probably the biggest example).
Ernham - there's no call to call anyone names here - I can see no evidence of 'jingoism' in any comments Ian has made. (And axes don't have hilts ;-)) Cheers. 4u1e 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't call anyone any names. Don't put words in my mouth and don't claim I did things I did not. Apparently you have never read Ian's hypocrisy and double-standards regarding Formula One drivers on Wikipedia. I have detailed one(maybe a few, I can't recall) incidents on my talk page. I highly doubt you have not read that, so I find your being so coy both quite sad and humorous at the same time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I am aware of your previous disagreements with Ian and as I say, I haven't seen any 'jingoism' from him. I understand jingoism to be a negative term meaning 'extreme chauvinism or nationalism', and I regard using that kind of language, with or without justification, as name calling. Hence my comment. If I've misunderstood the intent of your words, then you have my apologies. 4u1e 17:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
! Care to explain, Mark83, why you just reverted me adding my own signature, or do you just go in "revert mode" whenever you see one of my edits these days? Sounds like Damon Hill is my next wiki-stopErnham 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Specific percentages are certainly not important in themselves, that's why I eyeballed them rather than actually counting lines or something equally sad! It's just a tool to make sure I was keeping some perspective on relative weights of topics. On that basis the lead needs a little more meat. Allen's book has some interesting points on people's perceptions of Schumacher, I may find something relevant there. I've not really contributed to Coulthard's article, but I disagree (with Ernham, to clarify) about not including 'controversy'. Unless articles are just going to consist of a recitation of a driver's results I think we need to find ways of covering their impact on the sport. It probably says something about Schumacher's stature that his misdemeanours, perceived or otherwise, have had a very real impact on the running of the sport. Coulthard's have not (although it was McLaren who first got F1 into hot water over team orders, not Ferrari) which might be why they get less coverage. 4u1e 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still cooking up an alternative - but just to note that I do not agree with moving the mention of controversy right to the end of the lead - too much like hding it away. The lead should end as the article does, with his family life, probably the least important element of the article. Cheers. 4u1e 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
aNON: Now is a more balanced intro , cheers!

As far as I'm concerned the mention of Silverstone 98 belongs in the article. Yes, Schumacher did nothing wrong that day (well besides for the overtaking under yellow), but it was a controversial incident that he was involved in, and many people automatically blame him for it. So it needs to be there to point out that controversy was caused by the stewards and Ferrari messing up.--Don Speekingleesh 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking about Silverstone 94, aren't we? Though there have been a few Silverstone controversies. The overtake wasn't under the yellow flag, it was on the parade lap, and there wasn't a rule against that until the stewards decided to re-interpret the rules on the spot. What Michael did do wrong - what he was penalised for - was to ignore the black flag. As Ernham says, that was on the instructions of the team - Tom Walkinshaw, if I recall correctly. Still inexcusable, but understandable in the circumstances. But as I tried to say above, controversy does not imply blame. -- Ian Dalziel 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was 94 being discussed, but all mention of 98 has disappeared too. Both deserve to be in the article so the facts of the incidents can be known. As you say, Schumacher was not at fault, but they were controversial incidents he was involved in. The article is incomplete without them.--Don Speekingleesh 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - it's the 98 finish that was excised. Same goes for that, though - there was controversy, whether or not the blame lies with MS, so it is worth a mention. Just as the controversies around Melbourne and Spa 98 should be mentioned in the Coulthard article, whether or not any blame attaches to DC. (BTW, if I had jingoistic support for anyone, which I do not, it ought to be DC!) -- Ian Dalziel 22:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trash = Featured Article?

Go take a look at the Damon Hill article, if there are any impartial editors that even bother with thie wiki any more, and tell me what kind of nonsense passes for FA around here. How an article becomes FA seems to be more about whose wiener you wiggle on instead of what you write. I pretty much had to stop at the "schumacher fans call this a stupid move" or something along those lines. Rich, so rich. Freaking hillarious. The entire article is nothing more than POV, fan-boyism, and complete fabrication of reality, only occcassional punctuated by a factual date or location. ROFLMAO. It's an FA alright, but the "f" doesn't stand for featured. Ernham 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to include vulgarity in your posts. Regarding FAs. Any article that passes a FAC will be totally compliant with Wikipedia policy. However FA status applies to the version as passed, articles change. If you have a problem with a Featured Article request a Featured Article Review which will address your concerns. Whining about it here is not doing anybody much good. Mark83 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah. I'll take it up here. I'm not overly concerned with that garbage article, and care little it's a sad joke, since it's so sad a rational reader will dismiss it outright and be none the worse for it. But here is concern; Damon Hill in the grand scheme of F-1 was a nobody while Schumacher debatably the most important figure ever, thus the reason for more concern. Enjoy your Damon Hill blog, though. But while you are here, explain your reversion of my signature, hmm?Ernham 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is for discussing the Michael Schumacher article, and I can't see from your comments under this heading what changes you want made to the article. Like I said it appears to me you are complaining about FA status of another article, hence the discussion is out of place here. Damon Hill's article is not "my" "blog" - if I remember rightly about the only substantial edit I've ever made was to agree with you about something. As for the signature issue, if you want to ask me why I made the edit I'll be more than happy to explain. However I don't care for being ordered to do things. Mark83 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You WERE asked above both when and where you made the odd reversion; you did not answer. Classic Mark83. Ernham 05:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ernham, it would be nice if you can talk in a friendly way to the others. We are all hoping to make the articles in Wikipedia better. There is no need to take the others comment personally. Please be nice to and respect the others. Thanks --Cyktsui 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the Michael Schumacher article. If you suggesting this article is better than Damon Hill's and therefore should be a FA, by all means make it a FAC.Buc 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

For the sentence,

An ambassador for UNESCO and spokesman for driver safety, he has also been involved in numerous humanitarian efforts throughout his life, donating tens of millions of dollars to a variety of them.

The first part of the sentence does not sound like a complete sentence for me. Also, I am not too sure whether the part throughout his life, donating tens of millions of dollars to a variety of them. is required in the lead section. I think we should move the reference up if they are to be included in the lead.

I am happy to leave them the way it is for now as someone has reverted my edits. But comments will be appreciated. --Cyktsui 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) May be the phrase can sound better but MS has donated tens of millions of dolars, I think it is important because he was named Sportsman of the year for example in the Tsunami year because of his donations. In my opinion, if you don't like the phrase you can change it but the meaning and the situation in the article is good.

I would suggest that it's better to be more specific about amounts, but that from the figures we have it should be 'millions' not 'tens of millions', as we only 10 million dollars and 1.5 million Euros, which cannot accurately be characterised as '10s of millions'. I suspect it really is 'tens of millions' though, so perhaps a reference could be found. My personal view is that there is no need to put refs in the lead, as the facts will be ref'd when they appear in full later on. However, that's not the approach we've taken here, so if you feel that it's point readers will require confirmation on you could ref it (My personal view again is that it's not a point likely to raise doubts).4u1e 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Okie. Let's be more specific. This is the closest thing I've found to summing of his various donations(50 million, btw)[but that's only over the last 4 years.] That should suffice to demonstrate just to what degree he tended to donate. Ernham 19:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks for chasing that down. 4u1e 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref format

I really hate this reference format! Sorry - had to get that off my chest. Once you've got any number of references the whole thing becomes horribly unwieldy and hard to edit without making mistakes. OK , I feel better now.....Cheers. 4u1e 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What's really needed is some kind of syntax highlighting for the editor. That way, it'd become obvious what parts are actual article text, and where the citations etc. are. Alexj2002 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alex. That would help, but even then, I prefer having separate notes and references, with the notes only giving ref title and page number, and the references listed in full at the bottom of the page. Reason being, using the full template cites in the text, you have to repeat the whole thing for every different page you cite. 4u1e 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at wikEd for now, if you use Firefox. It offers really clear syntax highlighting in-browser, amongst a host of other features. CloudNine 11:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool- a shiny new toy! I like it - but I still think using this reference format in text is a mistake. See History of Saffron for a neater approach. 4u1e 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I spent a lot of time converting this page to this ref format because I mistakenly believed it was necessary for GA and FA status. Painful as it is to admit, the History of Saffron approach looks a whole lot better. Mark83 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
All versions are acceptable for FA, as far as I can see - I just find this one difficult to work with, particularly when multiple refs from a single source are required. We could change it in future, but there's no rush. On a related note, would anyone be sympathetic to removing all of the references in the lead? I know some people believe that facts given there should be referenced, but I don't think there's any wiki guideline that actually says that. The facts do need to be referenced, of course, but as the lead is summarising the rest of the article, all facts should appear in the main body and can be referenced there. At the moment, almost every sentence in the lead has a reference after it, which seems excessive. I'm not dogmatic about this, I just think it looks neater to leave them out. If someone doubts a fact in the lead, their first step in verifying it should surely be to check the fuller information in the body of the article. 4u1e 16:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Monaco 2006

I have some problems with the piece about Monaco 2006.

Although Schumacher took the pole position...

Pole position is the place at the head of the starting grid. This is achieved by posting the fastest legitimate time during qualifying. As all Schumacher's qualifying times were nullified by the stewards Schumacher did not start from the the front of grid and, therefore,"take pole position."

Alonso believed he would have been on pole if the incident had not happened.[72]

This makes it sound as if it was only Alonso that believed this to be the case, when multiple drivers, team mangers, commentators, journalists, and ultimately the stewards also found this to be the case. --Kro666 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But he was officially the pole sitter for a few hours I think, then demoted after the steward's announcement. As for the second point, I agree. Why not just go ahead and change it though? Mark83 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I will just remove the entire claim of alonso's supposed claim to the pole(speculation of a future unprovable event = not wiki material". There is no way to tell what Alonso could/would have done. Did he ever post faster times in sections of his qualifying runs that were better than schumacher's yet still not beat his time at the completion of the lap? Ya, that only happens, what 75% of the time? Heh.Ernham 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. ITV said "Alonso was on course to eclipse Schumacher’s time after a brilliant middle sector of the lap, but the momentary hesitation caused by the yellow flags saw him cross the line 0.064s adrift."[2] they would not be so emphatic if there was any doubt about it. Mark83 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Maurice Hamilton said "It was no coincidence that his main rival, Fernando Alonso, was halfway through his last lap and the split times showed the Renault driver to be 0.3 seconds faster."[3] RTE Sport: "World champion Alonso was on a flying lap and set to snatch pole, but with yellow flags waving he was forced to ease off around the final bend, leaving him 0.064 seconds behind Schumacher." [4] Mark83 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Do I need to repeat myself? We don't speculate on future events at wikipedia, hmmm? If I recall right, Weber also turned in a 1st section that was much, much faster than schumacher's 1st section(it was almost the exact same time alonso was running), yet Weber did not beat his time at the end of the lap. Ahh, lookie what I found, a little something to refute all this nonsense being spewed. Care to explain all the fast early sections(many of which were higher than schuamcher and many of which FASTER than alonso) that did not beat schuamcher's time? To make matters even worse(for you) schumacher had posted his fastest split time on that very lap he stalled his car, meaning he was also poised to raise the time. If you speculate in the future there is equal speculation that schumacher would have increased his lead even further. http://www.avenuevine.com/movabletype/archives/MonacoGPo6SG-w.gifErnham 23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Typical agressive/dismissive tone I see! Thank you so very much for that. Sorry to burst your bubble but that just backs up my references. It shows Alonso was quicker in sector 1 and sector 2. He was slightly slower in sector 3 because of the yellow flags. Please if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in a court case, never defend yourself, get a lawyer. Mark83 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you compeltely missed the point(s), which doesn't surprise me because they were completely based on logic and facts.23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What point was that exactly. Try explaining your points rather than hurling abuse please. Mark83 23:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Care to explain all the fast early sections(many of which were higher than schuamcher and many of which FASTER than alonso) that did not beat schuamcher's time? To make matters even worse(for you) schumacher had posted his fastest split time on that very lap he stalled his car, meaning he was also poised to raise the time. If you speculate in the future there is equal speculation that schumacher would have increased his lead even further. http://www.avenuevine.com/movabletype/archives/MonacoGPo6SG-w.gif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
As usual you are selectively reading citations. I have provided authoritative sources which state that Alonso would indeed have been faster than Schumacher. Period (as our American friends say). Mark83 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Umm, you have provided nothing at all that substantiates that, at least not outside of your wild imagination. Ernham 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
ITV, Maurice Hamilton, RTE. I'm sorry, but a quick glance at the reputations of those organisations and that man doesn't stack up well with your tainted record on this project. Mark83 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

--QuixpeeD 04:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)QuixpeeD... Well...As for what Jordan's statement was; I think that if we consider that he is a leader and he wants to cheer his soldiers, he should encourage them somehow, maybe he was trying to give Michael more confidance and urge him more and more to do his best, ofcourse considering that he noticed something unique in Michael driving skill, which i believe that Jordan is quite an experienced person in the sport. besides thats a psychological technique which is very efficient, i believe, i don't believe that Jordan is trying to offend Senna, but he is trying to point out his opinion and mark that Michael is a very skilled driver comparing him with Senna... QuixpeeD

I guess you're referring to the section below? Jordan's statement was made 15 years after the event, so it's unlikely he was trying to psyche Schumacher up. 4u1e 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Black holing cites.. just like I said

It's happened again, for the 92836419234923846 time here. A cite vanishes, replaced by a bogus cite. Someone else comes along, oh gee! this cite is rubbish! /delete. Just, like always, just like I said and was accused of making "personal attacks".Ernham 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Boy, it's so wonderful to have a admin vandalizing wikis and having no idea how to look into the history of a wiki. Unbelievable. The rigors for admin selection here must be rather weak.Ernham 03:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ernham, there is no point to blame it on the admin, especially they did not do anything. It is considered as personal attack. Please control yourself. --Cyktsui 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I assume you're talking about this. The link given (this one) leads to a Sports Talk "Have your Say" page. It is very clearly not a good source in support of the claim made in the article. Unless I'm missing something, its removal is quite obviously justified. garik 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ernham's right, in that the links are screwed up - but wrong to suggest that this is a deliberate attempt to 'vandalize' the wiki. The original ref for the Associated Press comment is a story about Schumacher's retirements, not the readers' poll currently being discussed. The original ref can be seen in this version (9th November 2006) of the article. The ref link is broken now, but seems to be the same AP syndicated story as this one, which does support the comment, albeit weakly in my view, but that's a different matter.

The original reference was commented out in this edit by Cyktsui on 1 January because the link was broken and marked as 'citation needed'. That is sensible housekeeping of the article. The reference under discussion now was added on 3 February in this edit by Bole2 as an attempt to reference the point. I don't think he picked a very good reference, but it's plainly a good faith edit to reference something that had been tagged as requiring it.

I'll restore the original story (albeit as a different link), which should remove some confusion. It's probably useful to debate whether that really references the point either, but at least we can proceed from the same understanding. 4u1e, 28 February 2007 12:27

Ah, I understand. garik 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We aim to please! :) 4u1e 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Split sections

It was suggested in the PR feedback (lick at the top of the page) that the sections about his career be split due to the article being very long. Buc 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Page is 86k long, but that's with all the tables, templates and pictures. I suspect the actual text length (which is the important thing here) is not that long. I doubt any driver requires multiple articles to cover their career, given the existence of race and season articles as well. 4u1e 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
People have got to understand that that kb count includes tables and references and then it becomes to big. Try copying all the prose of this article(until the end of the personal life section, cause that's what really counts) to a txt and you'll see it is 33 kb large. And that's normal size. The problem is that the races table is probably 25 kb and the article is heavily referenced, which makes it even larger in kb size. No way we should split sections, if you read the policies, it makes no sense. Thanks for the input--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think those sections are important information of MS and a lot of work has been done to cut down each section to a few paragraphs. Maybe we need to cut down the 2005 and 2006 as it seems to be out of proportion? --Cyktsui 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Would agree with Cyktsui, the article seems of an appropriate length, and is concise (which is the FA criteria) with the exception of the 2005-06 section which contains a little too much race-by-race stuff that belongs elsewhere. No split is required IMO. AlexJ 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)