Talk:Michael Schumacher/Archive 7

message: Since it now seems to have been established that the photo from the 1998 British GP depicts Coulthard, not Hakkinen, I would suggest that the photo could/should probably be removed from the article, on the basis that (1) it's not an especially clear photo and (2) presumably it was originally included in the article to illustrate the 1998 Championship battle between Schumacher and Hakkinen which, if it's Coulthard, it no longer does. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right it probably shouldn't be in the article. Neldav 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would but I don't know a pic that could replace that.LB22 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo from 1998 British GP 

message: How can Schumacher be considered "statistically the greatest driver the sport has ever seen"? 
* Does he have the highest mean and the lowest standard deviation and variance?
* Can the formula1.com website be considered a reliable source in terms of statistics? The site clearly has interests in making propaganda of Formula 1 and its drivers.
* In terms of statistics, Fangio and Clark aren't the greatest drivers (and maybe other one)?
I think this is really controversial and unneeded. --NeutralPoint 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I say get rid of it.  This is the same type of trouble I run into when dealing with athletes like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Michael Jordan.  It's a shame but I'm glad someone else is in favor of getting statements like this out of the text. //Tecmobowl 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think I got your point. All the time sevaral fanatics want somehow try to make their idols seem the greatest ones using statements/sources not really... encyclopaedic. This is troublesome and has to change. --NeutralPoint 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yeah, I think these articles communicate the feelings of the editors rather than the information that should be delivered.  These are not black and white situations; rather, let the facts speak for themselves.  I'm okay with citing a few relevant polls and such, but for the most part, people are quick to call someone the greatest "whatever".  If people present the facts properly, then they can allow the reader to assume whatever he wants. //Tecmobowl 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think you're being a little harsh on the formula1.com site. Although it does have an interest in promoting F1, there's no particular need for them to promote one driver (Schumacher) over another (Fangio would be the other candidate). You guys obviously understand statistics better than Formula1.com - what they mean by that phrase is that Schumacher has won the most races, championships, poles and quite a few other things. I suspect they wouldn't know a standard deviation if it bit them in the bum. There is a valid point made elsewhere in the lead that Schumacher has the highest totals in most categories. I think there would be space for a quote or comment to the effect that Schumacher is one of the small group considered possibly to be the 'greatest', whatever that means. The others are normally considered to be Fangio, Clark and Senna. Some would add Stewart and Prost. This would require a ref of course, the ideal would be a quote from a notable source. 4u1e 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's called fake science.  You got to admit by looking at the records, the most number of wins, the most number of Drivers' Championship, the most point in a season, he is statistically the greatest driver.  We are not taking about average or standard deviation, therefore, you cannot carry out hypothesis testing on it.  However, you cannot forget the fact that total is also one kind of statistics. Also, I don't think WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves applies in this case as firstly we are simply quoting, and secondly it is hard for readers to know the performance of other drivers simply by reading the article - therefore, they cannot possibly realise how Schumacher compared with other drivers.  --Cyktsui 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cyktsui - I think it's pretty clear that www.formula1.com doesn't intend anything other than to imply the greatest total scores. I think it unlikely that anyone will read it any other way - what else could it mean? In F1 total scores are overwhelmingly the most commonly used statistics. Average scores are sometimes, but much less often, used. The sport does not lend itself to detailed 'proper' statistical analysis, unlike baseball or basketball. Few drivers score many points, even fewer of those score wins, and only a minute fraction score significant numbers of wins. Wins and points are heavily dependent on the team driven for, much more so than say football where a striker in a relegated team can still score 15 goals (a reasonable total) in a season. An analysis similar to the one Stephen Jay Gould apparently did for baseball (I think he found that Babe Ruth was the only player to have actually scored outside the norms of what one would expect) would make little sense in F1 terms. Having said that, if we can find a quote from someone rating Schumacher up there with the greats, I think that would be an appropriate substitution, if this one cause concern. 4u1e 08:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I assume you mean the phrase: "holds nearly every record in Formula One"? I think that went in as a summary to avoid listing all of them in the lead. Although it is quite a claim, I think it is justifiable, if we are talking about major records - wins, poles, fastest laps and championships, either career totals or per year. 4u1e 11:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a potential problem in the phrase though - record could be a bad thing.  Say in soccer, the record of longest streak of not winning a match... --Cyktsui 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or most races without a win (held by Mr A. de Cesaris). True, true. Hmm: 'Holds nearly every major good record in F1'. Sounds a bit strained doesn't it? I think most readers would still get the point, but how about we change it to 'holds many records' (undisputed, I hope?!) and let the records talk for themselves. 4u1e 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistically the greatest??? 

message: There is a statement in the lead that I very strongly object to, but am not sure how to edit. Yes, Schumacher holds many records, undoubtedly more than any other driver. But to imply that he holds more records than every other F1 driver in history put together is some claim. I considered changing to "holds more F1 records than any other driver" or similar, but such a claim would also need a source. BeL1EveR 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean the phrase: "holds nearly every record in Formula One"? I think that went in as a summary to avoid listing all of them in the lead. Although it is quite a claim, I think it is justifiable, if we are talking about major records - wins, poles, fastest laps and championships, either career totals or per year. 4u1e 11:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a potential problem in the phrase though - record could be a bad thing.  Say in soccer, the record of longest streak of not winning a match... --Cyktsui 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or most races without a win (held by Mr A. de Cesaris). True, true. Hmm: 'Holds nearly every major good record in F1'. Sounds a bit strained doesn't it? I think most readers would still get the point, but how about we change it to 'holds many records' (undisputed, I hope?!) and let the records talk for themselves. 4u1e 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nearly every record"

message: Personally I don't think this table is necessary, but if it's going to remain, then, considering that the wins aren't in numerical order, would it be worth ordering the races by descending number of victories, i.e. France (8 wins) at the top, then San Marino and Canada (7 wins), etc. -- DH85868993 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it --Morio 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of wins 

message: I realise there is a change in the heading from 2005-2006 to 2005-2007.  I wonder if it is appropriate as 2007 is not part of his racing career.  He is going to test drive for Ferrari, but not racing for them... Any thoughts? --Cyktsui 04:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, as things stand, his racing career ended in 2006. The recent testing material should probably be cut down considerably and be worked into a 'post Racing Career' section. What will actually be in that section we will have to wait and see, of course! 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 

message: Storm in a teacup time :-). Regarding the 1994 incident with Damon Hill at the Australian GP, the article contains the sentence "British author Alan Henry has written that Schumacher was blamed by 'many F1 insiders' for the incident."
Like many race incidents, views are sharply divided on where, if anywhere, fault lies for this incident. One point of view, not the only one, is that it was Schumacher's fault, and it is this view that the quote is intended to support. User: 66.190.29.150 has edited this to read that Alan Henry alleges that many F1 insiders blame Schumacher etc.
The reasoning given is that "What he "wrote" is an allegation that is impossible to back up, unless you have a f1 insiderpoll?"
My feeling is that the use of alleges casts unreasonable doubt on what Henry says. Alleges has a specific use in a legal context where a claim is unproven, but used outside that context it simply adds doubt to a claim. The reasoning given above for using alleges, I think, misses the point: we don't need to prove that what Henry wrote is true, only that he wrote it, that he is a reliable source, and that it represents a significant point of view.
I believe all three of those points to be true. That he wrote it can be checked by anyone who can get access to the book. Regarding reliability, Alan Henry is a highly respected journalist who has specialised in F1 for over 30 years. As well as being an F1 insider himself, he regularly talks to 'F1 insiders' as an integral part of his job. He writes for motoring magazines and has published upwards of 40 books on the subject. And it is certainly true that there is a significant body of opinion that the incident was Schumacher's fault, just as there is another that it was not.
I'm restoring 'has written' as neutral wording. I'd be grateful if we could discuss the matter here before changing it again. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: user:Sporti has just added a ref'd comment from Murray Walker that Walker did not believe it was deliberate, which is fine by me as an example of the opposing point of view. There's also the fact that the stewards did not take any action, which was already in the article. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  how is it that he could possibly know what the majority of f1 insiders think unless he conducted a poll? This is obviosuly an sburd claim that he cannot back up, and in fact he cites not a single f1 insider in his book. This is an allegation.66.190.29.150 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't say a majority, he said many, which is a completely different measure. And it's his job to find out what F1 insiders think, that's what F1 journalists do. The normal way of doing things would be to talk to them, not a formal poll, but perfectly adequate to assess whether many people hold a view or not. If you are concerned that the words currently imply that a majority thought it was Schumacher's fault (I am not), then I suggest we add a phrase to the start of the para along the lines of 'Opinions were divided over the incident'. Cheers. 4u1e 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done so. 4u1e 09:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrote vs alleged 

message: ?? --Hamsterlopithecus 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedic? :) Dunno. I can see it's relevant for boxers, basketball players etc., but I'm not sure it's all that relevant for this sport. Weight hasn't been a factor in F1 since very early in Schumacher's career: the car minimum weight has been set including the driver's weight since the early 1990s. Height can be a negative factor for very tall drivers like Justin Wilson. Schumacher is, as far as I know, not unusually tall or short, so that's probably not relevant either. 4u1e 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height? Weight? 

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

message: Probably too trival to be in so I'll leave it up to others to decide. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I like the story, such tales are two a penny for most F1 drivers, so I guess it's probably not notable. 4u1e (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia?

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

message: Schumacher can't be concidered as "a retired Formula 1 driver" because he is still testing Ferrari.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.103.22 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he racing? 4u1e (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I think that Schumacher crashing his van in Kent is notable, I mean how often does an ex-F1 driver crash. This is the same as when Mansell was banned from driving for speeding, relatively minor but notable due to the individual. It is also just as notable as the tobacco section the stuff on his films. It is also well sourced from a credible news outlet.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think it barely merits a line. It will be increasingly less important as time goes on, and it really was an incredibly minor crash. I think a single line with a reference would suffice at most. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's irrelevant to be honest. It doesn't tell us anything about Schumacher, and it's not a big news story. We don't even know if it's rare for Schumacher (or other F1 drivers) to crash - the source says nothing about that. We do not list every single referenceable thing that has been written about Schumacher - I could fill hundreds of Wikipedia pages if we were going to do that, given the number of books, magazine articles and news stories that have been written about him.  The films are notable (just) because he only got the parts because he is famous, the tobacco is certainly notable, but would be better covered in the main F1 article than here. If necessary to get consensus I would certainly be happy to delete all three from the article. 4u1e (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection to slimming the section down to one line or the removal of all three sections and the information placed on the articles concerning the events , for example placing information regarding the crash on the Lydd article. I just disagree with the other similar minor information being included and not this information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If the above information can be sourced then it is significant in the Hamilton article. This is because an F1 driver not being able to drive off the track, is significant because he cannot drive for pleasure only for work.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with those who think Schumacher's crash is irrelevant. As for the Hamilton thing - anon. should get his/her facts straight. He was banned for only a month and only in France. Since he doesn't live there it couldn't have been a big inconvenience. Mark83 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  inclusion of crash in Kent 

message: Started wondering. Is there really any need for this section? I mean, Senna fans protested how it was unappropriate to have an article about Senna's controversial moves and criticism. I don't see how such a section should be more justified in Schumacher's case.SchumiChamp (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no problem as such with having a controversy section in Senna's article - the problem you've had previously is that you've created a new section by repeating material at length from earlier on in that article, whereas this article covers the incidents briefly in the 'Racing career' section, and then does them in depth later on. If you want to move material in the Senna article to create such a section, referenced, natch, then go for it. Having said that, this is not the place to discuss it - try raising the idea at the Senna talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

text: *Controversy sections are perfectly okay in my view, and people like Schumacher seem to earn them with their behaviour. I'm a little concerned though by the uncited descriptions in the Other incidents section though - lots of words with no sources. Malick78 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Many of the offending words were recently added and have been removed again (as they offered the writer's pov with no reference). Some further ref'ing is needed, though. 4u1e (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial driver

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

text: Don't you need some kind of citation software to do it the other way?Ernham 21:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see :Category:Citation_templates. Then use what's appropriate, e.g. Template:Cite news. Mark83 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Telegraph link here: 
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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "Living the Fast Life", September Films. 2000. Ernham 02:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ferrari years gutting 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right.--Serte 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 wins at Monza 

message: 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)
replies: text: I see the sentence got removed =) --Cyktsui 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005-2006