Revision as of 03:13, 13 October 2006

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Formula One Unassessed

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography Unassessed

Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

• talk page archive
• /archive 2

Please read this box before adding comments to this page. Particularly the guidelines about signing comments and adding newest comments at the bottom.

first paragraph/great vs. successful

MS as you may Know is the 2nd highest paid athlete in the world, also is one of the most notable sports figures in Europe, Latin America, some parts of Asia. So, saying MS is one of the most notable and well-paid figures in this sport is a limitation that does not exist in the reality... To say MS is succesful World Wide is more correct, even having taken in consideration he's not recognized in the states or in parts of africa. So, please don't change the contained information. If the grammar is poor then improve it but without affecting the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C trillos (talk • contribs) (2 February 2006)

I would only question if Schumacher is really the "rainmaster". In wet conditions he is only an average driver and the true rainmaster was Ayrton Senna. I believe this should be noticed to make things more fair.

Anyone that knows anything about F-1 knows Schumacher is regarded as the greatest F-1 driver ever, and the statistics back it up. I'm not sure who keeps changing my edit to add this note, but I will continue to put it back. His career is now at an end and he holds almost every record there is and has won more championships than anyone else in the sport. Stop with the anti-schumacher hatred. ~~Ernham

I know quite a lot about Formula One, thank you, and I know that many more people who know about Formula One regard Tazio Nuvolari, Juan Manuel Fangio, Stirling Moss or Jim Clark as the greatest driver ever. The details about Schumacher's remarkable record are in there - let it stand on that, or expect to have your unsupported POV removed every time you add it. -- Ian Dalziel 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's curios, then, wjile you claim it is POV, yet I do not see you going into Fangio's wiki section and removing the exact same quote, you anti-schumacher/ant-German bigot. "considered by many to be the greatest racing driver in Formula One history," Word for word, right our of Fangie's wiki. Ernham 01:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Ernham

"you anti-schumacher/ant-German bigot" says it all, really. -- Ian Dalziel 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How else could one explain your complete, irrational hypocrisy, mister question avoider? Ernham 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of a NPOV discussion? I don't think a "greatest ever" assertion belongs on *any* driver's entry - comparisons are impossible because of different numbers of races per season, different lengths of careers. "Considered by many" seems to me to put the point that it's only an opinion better than "widely considered", though. It is certainly unarguable that Michael's record is unequalled - I'm quite happy with the "most successful" tag.

Oh, and I should hold back on the personal abuse, if you want to carry on editing Misplaced Pages -- Ian Dalziel 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, dude, explain your hypocrisy in editing or concede you are biased and have been editing thusly. You know where you can stick your veiled threats. Ernham 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Ernham

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks -- Ian Dalziel 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask, can you be the greatest basketball player ever and yet be the most unsuccessful? Yes, in fact you can. You could score 90 points a game and steal the ball 50 times a game and have 100 blocks per game etc, etc, but you can still lose the game. As a matter of fact, you could never win a game in your entire career. This makes you the greatest basketball player ever, but it also make you one of the most unsuccessful. Now, do you understand the distinction, and why, in fact, that wins convey success, while things like lap times, pole postions and the like convey how good of a driver the person actually is? Ernham 03:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC) ernham

Formula One is not basketball. Basketball has not changed intrinsically in decades. Formula One has changed enormously in a relatively short time, and straight comparison between drivers is not possible, except on a statistical basis. To say that anyone is the greatest driver in F1 history is unencyclopedic, not to mention inaccurate. There is no quantifier for greatness, only success. To have removed the word "great" from certain other drivers' articles, yet to insist on it here is absolutely POV, and will always be removed.

There is no consensus whatsoever on including the word "greatest" in the first paragraph here, and it is not verifiable by Misplaced Pages standards. If you can satisfactorily verify Schumacher's greatness, please do - and that does not mean by statistics. I might add that Fangio won very nearly half his F1 races, making Schumacher less-than-great in comparison. Statistics can work all ways. Also, Poles / Fastest Laps etc merely show that someone is better than those he is racing against, not those that went before him. In addition, statistics do not take into account the standard of a driver's machinery, nor the conditions under which he races.

Continual reverts of this article are not the way forward. Bretonbanquet 03:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And don't even think about accusing me of vandalism, or "vandlizing" - whatever the hell that is - blurb about Schumacher's charity activity has no place whatsoever in the first paragraph of an article. And it is not sourced, no matter what you say about sources at the bottom of the page. Which of them applies to this statement? This article has big POV and verification problems. Bretonbanquet 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, BBC sport already did that a year ago or so and found him the greatest ever drivier by the numbers, but the whole point of the article was that he wasn't the "greatest champion", because they didn't care for his personlity. You just vandalized this wiki without even bothering to check cites that were already on the page and you dar to tell me about POV?

it's VERY easy to use the numbers to determine thngs between generations. For instance, we will just look at one year in driver X's career. He was came in first 75% of his races and second and 25%. Driver Y came in first 25% of the time and second 75%. Now, which one of the two were the greater driver? In case you didn't know, statistics assumes all sorts of things, such as the distribution and the like. And in this case, it's highly unlikely that weather conditions were enough to warrant statistical deviation, assuming we have a decent sample size, which we do. And, again, BBC already did this. Ernham 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And learn how to read. It is to sourced. Look at cite 24. You are vandalizing and you are ignorant of cites on the very page you claim they are not even on and the cite above, from Eurobusiness. They are not an online magazine. Feel free to contact them personally or subscribe. Ernham 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, look at all the reverts you just did when I changed the claims of "greatness", which you yourself claim is something that cannot be attributed to driver, on other famous drivers? You are ANOTHER bigotted hypocrite. And you lose: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Bretonbanquet

Care to explain that? You reverting my changes to the claims of "greatness", and even claiming it is NPOV in the revert, then coming here and saying the same thing, but in this case with actual FACTS backing up the aserting, is somehow POV. You are totally busted. Ernham 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Here it is again: Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks - read that.

The notes on the other articles are not statements of those drivers' greatness, merely acknowledging that many in the field of Formula One consider those drivers great. If you can't tell the difference between those statements and what you wrote, that's nobody else's fault.

To come on the talk page and say which cite you mean is not properly citing a statement. Put the cite by the statement, and ut it in a more appropriate place, or someone will just take it off again. Nobody in the field of Formula One, or Formula One journalism, is comfortable declaring one driver to be the best ever, above all others. Misplaced Pages must reflect that. If you can't understand that, nobody else is to blame. Just because you think it, it doesn't mean it's true. Putting stuff like this on here and taking similar statements off other articles will get you banned, make no mistake. Others won't try to reason with you on here, they'll just ban you, and then revert your edits. Try to be more reasonable and accept the consensus of opinion, that is how Misplaced Pages works. I'll sort the first paragraph again, but no doubt you'll just accuse me of vandalism again. And please, "by the numbers" is bad grammar, and frankly not very meaningful. Bretonbanquet 03:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, well that's enough from me - we've had personal attacks, and the article has been laced with POV. Someone will do something about it soon enough. Bretonbanquet 04:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And vandalising other articles like Jim Clark and Ayrton Senna will get you precisely nowhere. Someone will just revert them and protect or semi-protect them, like they did before when someone like you decided to add their twopence worth. We're not actually stupid, you know. Bretonbanquet 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"For instance, we will just look at one year in driver X's career. He was came in first 75% of his races and second and 25%. Driver Y came in first 25% of the time and second 75%. Now, which one of the two were the greater driver?" The good Ernham's own logic proves that Schumacher is not as great as Clark or Fangio, who won a higher proportion of their races! Can we get away from invidious comparisons and back to the facts? Michael's record is good enough to stand for itself without diluting it with daft hagiography. -- Ian Dalziel 10:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This line keeps changing but at the moment it is "He is statistically the most successful Formula One driver ever and is considered by some to be the greatest of all time." We racing fans love to have endless debates about the comparable "greatness" of our favorite drivers, but the first paragraph in a Misplaced Pages article is not the place for them! The first paragraph should be direct statements of fact that someone who knows nothing about the subject would need to know. Saying he is the most successful or even "statistically the most successful" is an important, basic fact that someone should know about MS. That he's some people's favorite driver and that some consider him the greatest is not only unimportant, but is obviously implied by the statement of fact that he has had more success than anyone else.

The goal of racing is to win races and championships (duh). Success is defined by that alone. I think "most successful" is an objective fact. "Greatest" is subjective and should not be mentioned here. I don't understand why there's any reasonable debate about that and why people aren't satisfied with "most successful."

Someone should do a Misplaced Pages article about these endless debates that racing fans love to have :-) -- ColinC

Who the hell are Eurobusiness? There they are in the first paragraph; unsourced, unexplained - this kind of thing is just rubbish. I'd take it off, but some nutter would just put it back. Can we have some sensible editing to this article, or is it just going to become a POV-ridden free-for-all? Bretonbanquet 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK it's a defunct magazine, so a cite might be tricky. Ernham? -- Ian Dalziel 10:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Greatest went back in because now that's one entire book that spends over 100 pages mathematically proving he is the greatest ever AND the official formula one site calls him the greatest. You cannot argue with mathematical proofs and it's pretty hard not to see the official F-1 site as an indication of the general reality of things involed with the sport. In short it stays, like I put a similar greatest into fangio's section for similar reasons.Ernham 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A bit of vandalism going on right now, at least in the "Early Years" section. Just fixed it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.23.154 (talk • contribs) (21 April 2006)

this wiki gets 24-7 vandalism.Ernham 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungary '06

Does Hungary '06 really need to be listed as a controversial incident? Nobody denies that the banging wheels with Heidfeld was Michael's fault, but I don't think anybody thinks that it was somehow intentional or unsporting. I don't think we need to put every incident where Michael's come into contact with another car as a controversial incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.234.235 (talk • contribs) (13 August 2006)

Well, he was pushing the limit. He was cutting that chicane trying to stay ahead for about 4 laps with De La Rosa and then heidfeld, so the circumstances leading up to it were dodgy. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If I recall right he only cut the chicane and stayed ahead once, which is a pretty minor offense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.234.235 (talk • contribs)

Please, please, please sign your comments! He cut the chicane while trying to hold off DLR and gained an advantage, he therefore should have yielded the place. That was unsporting. Mark83 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing different from what we've seen in the days of Senna, Prost and Mansell. JackSparrow Ninja 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Though I didn't see 'the days of Senna, Prost and Mansell', this kind of thing happens (relatively) pretty regularly. Fernando Alonso blatantly did it to Mark Webber at Monaco in 2005 (twice possibly?) – it's not really worth mentioning when you look at the big picture (compared to Michael's other career "incidents")... – AlbinoMonkey 03:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation, but it was not only unsporting but (worse?) really, really dumb. Schumacher could have finished 4th and certainly no worse than 5th if he'd let de la Rosa and Heidfeld by cleanly and just kept pressing on, which would have left him only 6-7(?) points behind Alonso. He may regret that before the end of the season. I agree it's hardly on the scale of Jerez 97 or Adelaide 94. 4u1e 01:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Its natural for a sportsman to do something like that. He was giving 100% in a car which was very quickly losing grip yet he gave everything to tey to get as many points as possible for himself and the team. Cutting the chicaine is nothing. It happens in formula 1 all the time. If my memorey serves me right quite a few drivers including a certain Fernando Alonso done this in Canada this year. Its no big deal. Thunderous503 10:05, 22 August 2006

Yes, it's no big deal if you don't gain a position. Schumacher, though, gained the position on de la Rosa when he cut the chicane, and didn't let him pass, meaning he should have incurred a drive-through penalty. De la Rosa was alongside him going into the chicane, if not slightly ahead, but when Schumacher cut the chicane, he came out well in front, thus gaining the place again - Against the rules. When the driver cut the chicane at Canada, they generall did so when they were alone on the track, thus not gaining any position. Manipe 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Clashes with Damon Hill?

I see that in the Damon Hill article, there is an interesting section on his clashes with Schumacher in the mid-'90s. Even I, as a non-motor-racing fan, remember this rivalry very well. Surely such a section should also be included in this article. Just a suggestion. EuroSong 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea actually. Added it. JackSparrow Ninja 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Adelaide '94 incident: In an interview with F1 Racing, Patrick Head said that Williams had no doubt that Schumacher was guilty. Also, there is no sentance saying why Williams didn't appeal, which was because the team were still getting over the loss of Ayrton Senna and that for Hill to win the title in an FIA court would be disrepectful (or something along those lines anyway) --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Their claimed reason(s) for not wanting to appeal were two-fold. One, they said they had no proof. Two, they said that winning in the court of appeals would be disrespectful to Senna. The illogic and ridiculousness of their claims, when taken together and in context, is amazing. If they had no proof and FIA did not act without their appeal, they would have had no chance to win any verdict in their favor in the first place. So even assuming that did happen, that would have been perfect for them, because they would have at least showed that they did not want the world to believe they believed they were not wronged by schumahcer that day. Makes no sense for not having a formal appeal. The second claim, of dishonoring senna by winning the title in the court of appeals would also never happen in that scenario, thus it is a non-factor. Taking the second statement alone is also ridiculous. Would it "dishonor" senna more by letting a supposed "cheater" win the championship over the "rightful" owner that himself was cheated, especially when the cheated was his own teammate? The truth is that neither outcome really has anything to do with Senna, and it all just smacks of a sad attempt to use Senna's tragic death as an escape goat or excuse. THAT is what would bring dishonor to Senna, and Williams went and did it. Very, very sadErnham 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Battles with Damon Hill section

I think it is, factually, grossly incorrect to state that from all his opponents, Michael battled "none of them so fiercely with as with Damon Hill". The author bases this on their battles through two seasons, 1994&1995, although Michael was much better than Hill back then (too many points ahead in 1995, would have been so in 1994 without his DQs). In contrast, Michael battled closely with Mika Hakkinen throughout the whole 1998&2000 seasons and in the majority of the 1999&2001 seasons, with many "fierce battles" in there. In addition, the two were much more closely matched - a single look in the 2000 Championship is enough proof.

Having said that, I also don't see any point in this whole section. Those accidents mentioned involve Michael, but I don't see any point in listing those specific ones. To prove this with a contradiction, if it's alright to have a section with his clashes with Hill, why not have one with his accidents with Coulthard? Or with Senna? Or with Villeneuve? Or with Yoong for that matter? This section is Michael-related, yes, but it has really no reason for being there.

AdventurerGR 12:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC) AdventurerGR, August 30, 2006

I beleieve that it was put there because it was a good edition to the Damon Hill article which managed to reach an FA (Before this one ;))...anyway, It's the only one there because nobody else has made a list regarding these battles with them...I suggest that there should be a

• Contraversial Races - This section is a list of all the races that have caused contraversy on Schu's part, Adelaide '94; Jerex '97; Argentina '98; Montreal '98; Monaco '06
• Notable Races - This section deals is a list of all the races which made Schu so good, regardless of whether he 'took out' anybody or not

How is that? --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• It also should be noted that this section was ripped directly from F1 Racing's Damon Hill issue (it has since been edited).141.161.36.76 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the whole section may be moved to a new page if necessary. Since it is impractical to list all the battles that Michael's had with all of the other drivers, I don't see why Daemon Hill is particularly important. Jaidev 11:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, such utter none sense must be moved. (206.126.83.144 22:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

Too much emphasis on 2006

I see that the article has too much emphasis on races of the 2006 season. Esp the recent ones. I think this needs to be trimmed a lot. Rest of the stuff should go in the race / season reports. Jaidev 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's is probably going to be his last year, so a bit more attention to detail is not un-warranted. Ernham 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Retirement

I belive we are waiting official press release that MS will retire at the end of the 2006 season. 86.144.50.150 13:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been released, formal announcement will follow shortly, probably in the press convefence.84.66.82.220 13:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

yep, added source on page. Jp246 13:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone else think it notable that MS mentioned every member of his family except his brother in his retirement speech in the conference?--*smb 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not notable here, but odd nonetheless. violet/riga (t) 13:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to not read too much into it. Perhaps he perceives Ralf more as a driving peer than as a member of his support team? (Keeping in mind that he was thanking those who've helped and supported him first-and-foremost during the speech). The end of an era eh? :( T h e M a v e r i c k 14:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont think Ferrari have officially announced that KR is replacing him yet.

They have. violet/riga (t) 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Very tragic. The end of a legend in motor-racing. I won't be watching much of F1 next year now. (216.99.48.117 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

1997

Michael Schumacher isn't disqualified of season 1997, it is exclued single if not it would have lost its victories… like Tyrell in 1984. --RenaultR83 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Salary

There is no information about yearly salary or anything like that. Please consider adding that in. (206.126.83.144 22:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

He is also the world's first billionaire athlete(via salary, not endorsements and the like). (Eurobusiness, march 2005). Ernham 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Ernham

-- He is also the world's highest paid athlete (NOT TIGER WOODS), with "reports higher than $100 million/year" according to Formula1.com, and July 2006 edition of F1 Racing magazine.User:PublicSecrecy 11:59 PM, 19 September 2006

Statistically prolific

implies that he is the most successful in a statistical sense. Most wins, WDCs, poles, points, fastest laps. etcBlnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with saying that he is the most successful driver ever. You could average it by number of starts, and the like, but that doesn't change bthe fact that he has scored more points, won more races and been WDC more often than any other driver. -- Ian Dalziel 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should say statistically successful, as it clarifies it more.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What other kind of success is there in a sport? -- Ian Dalziel 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, you say you could average it out by number of starts but then say it isn't really relevant. But it is! If one driver starts 200 Grands Prix and wins 1 WDC and another starts 100 Grands Prix and wins 1 WDC, the latter is obviously the more successful driver. While Schumacher's career will allow any statistical analysis to give him a good result on these terms, it should be pointed out that he's had fifteen years. ITV commentators were qualifying their remarks all weekend at Monza by calling him "statistically the most successful driver", I don't see why we should take the step to say THE most. Mark83 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever. I don't particularly object to the word "statistically", I just think it's superfluous. It isn't that definitive, anyway - you *could* say that Fangio was statistically more successful because he won a higher percentage of his races, couldn't you? -- Ian Dalziel 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very hard to be definitve. If Räikkönen had spent the last 5 years in a Ferrari and not a McLaren he would have won a lot more races and possily WDCs. However can you say that because the McLaren was at times either relatively slow or unreliable that Räikkönen is a poorer driver because of that? Mark83 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some pieces from the Ayrton Senna article:

...caused his story to approach what could arguably be termed a modern legend. A prodigiously talented driver, Senna had supreme control of the car and a seemingly 'God Given' right to win.

In F1, wet weather racing is considered to be a great equaliser. Speeds must be reduced and car superiority in power or grip is greatly reduced. The rain demands great driver car control, ability and driving finesse. Senna is widely considered the best driver ever in wet weather.

That same weekend, Bernie Ecclestone revealed that he still believed Ayrton Senna was and remained the best F1 driver he'd ever seen.

Schumacher is, together with Senna, the best racing driver ever. That is general knowledge. Just as there are no statements (needed) for this in the Senna article, there is no need for them in this article. Putting things in it like "some consider him", puts him down, implying it is just an opinion by some. JackSparrow Ninja 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's a widely held opinion, not any kind of knowledge. There is no objective way of comparing drivers from different eras. If you said Schumacher, together with Senna, Prost, Clark, Stewart, Moss, Fangio and Nuvolari you might get some consensus - not a hundred percent, though. I think Jim Clark was the most naturally talented, the most complete, the best racing driver I ever watched. Think. I don't know that, there are no facts to reference. It's an opinion, just as yours is. -- Ian Dalziel 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is just, that we need consistancy then. Then we need to nitpick about it at the Senna article as well, as well as the others. JackSparrow Ninja 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost me - what are you suggesting, then? -- Ian Dalziel 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is too much hagiography as it is. Even with the stats, you have to note that in any sport the number of events has steadily increased, so winning the most isn't necessarily the best as there are more events available. Since 2003 the poinstcoring became more generous so it seems likely that Alonso will end up with a higher career haul than Schumacher if he stays for 15 years (Alonso is 25yr 1 month and has about 60+60+130+110 = 360 pts while Schumacher was 25.1 in Feb 1994 when he had maybe 50+70=120 pts in his career) - there are more GPs these days than in the old days,perhaps there were only 5-6 per year in the Fangio years. Also wrt statistical accumulation, Schumacher if he was driving in the 40s and 50s most likely would have been killed in an accident long before be even got 30 wins, and perhaps Alonso would have been killed at the 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix, a modern driver being more prolific is not really surprising as they are much, much less likely to get killed whereas the old drivers didn't normally last more than 40 races, as well as there being more and more races each year. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

They all, in their respective Eras, competed against like-challanged people. Basically, many of the numbers are fine to compare because while it was more easy to end up dead back in the 50s, everyone was more likely to end up dead, so every stayed within what they felt was an acceptable limit. So too do drivers today. they all have the same limit. Of course, the reality of it is that a lot of records and ability is going to be correlated to how good your team and car is, with the driver only behing perhaps half of the equation for success. I'd say 4 of his current 7 WDC he did not have a "top" car, and if he wins this next one, that will be 5 of 8 he did not have the top performing car.Ernham 22:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this on the news on the frontpage:
Michael Schumacher, the most successful driver in Formula One history, announces his plans to retire.
If the Wiki-mods or whoever post the news stuff word it like that, we shouldn't be bickering over minor wording issues here. JackSparrow Ninja 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The news headlines can be written by anyone, same as the encyclopedia.--*smb 10:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just came across the article to see what POV arguments were used to reduce Schumacher's merits. Didn't take much time to reach the word "Statistically". Frankly, if you think that somebody's success in sports does NOT come from the statistical evidence, you have to state it, not the other way around. If you just take the No. of WC titles, MS is already number one. If somebody thinks he is NOT number one regarding to other categories, this can be stated (but that's also difficult, if you see the discussion about comparing him to drivers of other ages). In sports, statistics come first, so it's needless to emphasise it. Everything else needs to be pointed out. --perelly 08:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"He is the most successful Formula One driver ever" is blatant POV, I'm sorry. That is Misplaced Pages stating that it is a fact that he is the best F1 driver ever. However take polls of the 100 people on the street, 100 Wikipedians or 100 people in the F1 paddock and even if a majority says he is the best ever, a significant minority will say he's not.

"He is the most statistically successful Formula One driver ever" is pure fact. How can anyone argue that it is better to have POV than fact? I have no problem with "He is the most statistically successful Formula One driver ever and according to X the best driver ever. (Where X is a reputable source). Mark83 20:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And "X" will most likely be Murray Walker?--Skully Collins 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1997 WDC standing

In the past few days, the entry in the results table for Schumacher's 1997 WDC result has been edited back and forth between DSQ and EX. The rationale for each edit has been explained in the edit summaries, but I'd like to bring the discussion here.

I haven't been watching Formula One for long, but from what I've seen, the FIA and race stewards generally do not use the word disqualified when barring a driver from the classification of a race in progress (or a completed race); instead, they use excluded from the race classification or something similar (see Juan Pablo Montoya's exit from Canada 2005). However, it seems commonplace to use the two terms interchangably. That's the way we code race results in the tables; in-race or post-race exclusions are labelled "DSQ", while "EX" is reserved for drivers and teams who did not appear at the race weekend because they were banned from it.

How does this relate to the 1997 WDC? I think that given the "definition" of DSQ used for race results, it is not wrong to use DSQ for Schumacher's 1997 WDC result. I don't see how stating that he was "disqualified" from the WDC table implies that he was stripped of his race results... Majin Izlude 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - DSQ seems to me to be the correct way to describe this particular penalty. The difficult thing to convey at a glance is that he was not stripped of his season results, only his position in the final table. So while all his results stood, they added up to zero in the final reckoning.

The thing that causes some confusion is the difference between DSQ and EX, at least as it's used in many stats books and websites. DSQ tends to refer, as you say, to in-race or post-race disqualifications, whereas EX refers to disqualifications for breaches of the rules during practice or qualifying, such as missing a weight check. Drivers are very rarely excluded during qualifying these days for various reasons, but it used to be fairly common in the 80s and early 90s. In this sense, DSQ means a disqualification from a race which has started or been completed; whereas EX means disqualification from a race which had not started at the time of the disqualification.

Anyone who is completely banned from the meeting just doesn't get an entry - they are not involved in the race weekend and don't appear in the results. In these cases, and in the light of the above explanation of the term, designating the term EX to them suggests they were in some way present at the GP, which isn't the case when someone is banned.

In the case of Monaco '05 when BAR were banned - it was the team that was banned, not the drivers, so it's wrong to say that Button and Sato were banned from the race. My understanding is that if contractual agreements had been in place, they could have raced for someone else. If anyone has evidence to the contrary though, please post it. Bretonbanquet 18:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you about MS's 1997 standing being a DSQ. However, I disagree with Bretonbanquet over BAR's exclusion last year. Although you may be technically correct, the de facto situation was that both drivers were contractually bound to BAR and were therefore in effect excluded from the races as well, just as they were both DQ'd from Imola. I think there will be other people than me, who, seeing the key with 'EX' and the blanks for the two races in Sato's and Button's tables, will add 'EX' to them instead. Perhaps we need a 'DNE' for 'Did not enter'!

This also raises the question of what should be done with the team table, Nick Heidfeld's 'DSQ' from qualifying in 2000, etc. The trials and tribulations of the Wikipedian!--Diniz 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're not consistent with these tables, then they're a complete waste of time. If we start putting in EX or other terms for races which a driver was not even entered for, then the tables become a farce. Where does it end? A blank box has up to now indicated a non-entry - why is this different for Sato and Button here? Exclusions can only occur when someone is entered in the first place - this instance is not an exclusion, it's a ban!!

If people must put something in there, then I suggest bringing about a "Banned" code to put in the box - but we'll have to do it for all the other cases as well. Even then I don't believe it applies here because the team was banned not the drivers, regardless of the consequences for the drivers. We're in danger of making the tables too complicated and starting to stretch the terms to mean something they don't, and being "technically correct" is all we should be concerned with. Otherwise people can make the tables say anything they want, on the grounds that being technically correct isn't important. Bretonbanquet 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of a section on anti-schumacher propaganda/reporting

The incredibly anti-schumacher attacks that are continuously vomited up en masse by significant portions of the English media is disturbing both to me as a forumla one fan and doubly disturbing to me as a citizen of the world when I hear this coming from public scources, such as the BBC. This venomous assault on Schumacher has been noted by other journalists as well, and I think a section covering this unique phenomenon is rather appropriate given the commonality and magnitude of this assault throughout schumachers soon-to-be ending career. More often than not, Schumacher is called "the German", and I've yet to hear a single English broadcaster actually pronounce his name right, yet the English commentators elsewhere go to great lenghts to pronounce even extremely odd Africa names correctly in the case footballers and the like. The stereotypical article such as these usually includes jingoism, grotesque pictures/caricatures of schumacher making some kind of non-normal facial experession, hypocrisy, and what seems to be outright ignorance of facts/reality of a given situation. A motor sports>commentator/journalist summed it up pretty well:

"I am beginning to understand the primary reason for all the sad Schumacher bashing that hits the press and online media. Michael Schumacher is not English and he certainly does not drive for an English team and for a sport that has its heart in England, it looks unlikely that he will ever be a complete hero with the men who wield their pen more often than the German wield's his steering wheel.

It is a pity that more and more viewers and people all over the world listen and read about how Schumy is hesitant to go on a all out battle with other drivers on the track rather than in the pit lane. The commentators are all English, the authors are all English; it is as if to say that one needs an Italian writer to get some credible story on the stunning performances that Ferrari and its ace driver have put in this year." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernham (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I totally disagree. And from what I have found the author of the above quote ("I am beginning to understand....") is not a motorsport commentator but a blogger! I was astounded to read that you have chosen to highlight the BBC as a producer of "vomitous" anti-Schumacher attacks. Here are the first BBC stories about Schumacher from 2006, 2005 and 2004. I challenge you to find any "vomit" or "non-normal facial experession":

• Schumacher tips Ferrari revival
• Schumacher shrugs off age concern
• Schumi keeps options open

I'm not going to deny that there are not some idiotic commentators out there, however it is equally, I'm sorry, idiotic to label all English-speaking commentators as xenophobic/jinogistic or blindly anti-Schumacher. You seem to be coming from a position that Schumacher is a flawless character! However any balanced description of the man has to take into account that although a brilliant driver capable of astonishing speed, he has flaws. Call them misjudgements, lack of sportsmanship, whatever - to leave them out of articles would be to provide an incomplete analysis of his career.

You really could have picked a better article to make your point. The article you have chosen is a disgrace. It says "it is as if to say that one needs an Italian writer to get some credible story on the stunning performances that Ferrari and its ace driver have put in this year". Every ITV race report from ITV has been very complimentary. Also see a summary of his 10 best wins from from ITV, "When Michael Schumacher gets out of his Ferrari for the final time at the Brazilian Grand Prix on October 22 it will bring the curtain down on a record-breaking career that has seen him rack up an astonishing seven world titles and 90 wins (so far!). "

Also please be careful when using the term "English". While undoubtedly most F1 commentators based in the UK are likely to be based in England, that doesn't necessarily mean they are English. British and English are two distinct terms. Mark83 09:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Spare me. I can read. And i read nothing but trash and hear little but trash from the British press, and it has been that way since approximately '94. Read the new "tainted legacy" where complain that people like senna were greater champions because Schumcahcer was invovled in some incidents, but it's like they never saw senna race at all. Senna was involved in just as many controversial and incredibly dangerous situations/incidents as schumacher, and he was only in F-1 for almost HALF THE TIME Schumacher was. Even in '94, I remember schumacher saying in an interview that he "might not even have to fight over second place". He was referring to Senna's incredibly dangerous driving and his crazy belief that god protected him on the race track. In any event, Senna was crazy and invovled in far more controvesial incidents if you correct for years involved in forumla. And that was written by a formula 1/motorsport journalist from http://sify.com/sports/drive/. Look like a blog to you, Holmes? Hobbs, who is English himself but lives in the united states now has repeatedly said the same thing in the past. I'm aware of at least 2 other journalists/commentators that believe the same. It's a common realization for those of use that have watched f-1 since the days of Senna and earlier that the "rules of the press" are quite difference for Schumacher than anyone else. Ernham 12:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Michael, as a person, is consistently misrepresented in the worst sections of the British press, and I agree that nothing he has ever done on track approaches the enormity of some of Senna's unpunished exploits. I don't, however, think that those facts justify trying to make him appear blameless, or glossing over the controversies in his career. Nor, of course, does Ayrton's death justify an attempt to beatify him. -- Ian Dalziel 12:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I never insinuated that major incidents be somehow made to make Schumacher appear blameless. The reality is that we can only speculate on to the degree of Schumacher's faults for the incidents we have seen. The section I'm talking about would be more along the lines of a "the price of being a champion", and briefly outline some of the facts of the matter. There may be very basic reasons for the bad press. For one, given the fact he has finished on the podium in, what, about 75% of the races he's been in? A lot, basically. And we know that these incidents that occur in F-1 always happened and they continue to happen and they happen to **everyone**. The fact that he is almost always in the top 3 vying for the win and championship at the end of the year greatly increases the chance that his "incidents" will involve on of the other top drivers, and such an incident can always be portrayed as an attemp to take out that rival, when in fact it was just a bad day for both drivers. Statistically, it was their "turn" for an incident. Then the media hams it up, basically. i'm not sure, though, but I know what i hear and read, and it rarely matches up with reality when it comes from the British press in combination with Schumacher.Ernham 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I buy "everyone". I can't think of a controversial incident involving Stirling Moss, and the only controversy involving Jim Clark was about the final accident of "Taffy" von Trips. As far as I can see, Clark was blameless, but no doubt you'll disagree - and we're not going to find that one on YouTube. I think Senna changed the attitude to ruthless professionalism, and I think Michael carried on with the principle that anything that doesn't have a rule against it is acceptable. I wouldn't demonise either driver, but I think Misplaced Pages should give due weight to the controversial incidents. -- Ian Dalziel 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean since "all time". Geez. Surely there are also people that only ever raced once or twice as well, going to include them too? No. I meant realistically, in the modern era of F1, which started about the time Prost started in F1, then, yes, everyone that's been around for awhile is going to get into any number if incidents.

Within your constraints, and off the top of my head - tell me about any allegations against Gerhard Berger, Thierry Boutsen, Jean Alesi or Heinz-Harald Frenzen? -- Ian Dalziel 11:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall any late race incidents involving Berger off hand, but I do recall early collisions with both Senna and Andretti. Boutsen smashed into Comas. Alesi? You gotta be kidding me. He had half a dozen. Heinz? Crashed into Tulli and Margiritos.I'm sure at least some of them have been invovled in more then just what pops into my mind after 5 minutes of contemplating it.

As for blogger vs. commentator; The quote you gave seems to be from here by Vinesh V Nair, who is described elsewhere as a blogger. I repeat that it is one of the worst pieces of journalism I've read in a long time. He talks about the savaging Schumacher gets in the British press yet fails to give even a single example. Ernham, spare you? Spare you what? The proof that what you said about the BBC is wrong? I assume you're talking about tabloid press, in which case can I give you some advice? You're looking in the wrong place for intelligent commentary of F1. If you want to read British analysis of F1 please stick to F1 Racing or the excellent coverage in most of the quality papers. Mark83 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there some law I'm not aware of that states a blogger and a journalist/commentator are mutually exclusive? Also, do you consider the BBC a rag? The Guardian? Ernham 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but journalist/commentator suggests some kind of training or experience. Anyone can be a blogger and anyone could write a better piece than the one you referenced. And no, every word I have written here is defending the BBC. You are the one who wrote "attacks that are continuously vomited up en masse by.... public scources, such as the BBC." I would appreciated if you withdrew what you said about the BBC or gave a reference to some "vomit" it has written about Schumacher. And I consider The Guardian a quality paper, I suggested you avoid tabloid press. Mark83 15:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to withdraw such, I would need a time machine and a surgeon willing to remove my ears, eyes, and possibly even fingers for fear i might learn to read braile. The first time I recall thinking there is much more going on here than jealous or fair criticism of balls-to-the-wall champion i was watching a GP that had two commentators , both of which were English. In the early going of the race, a guy in a slower car was weaving to keep schumacher from passing him(the commentators did not mention he was weaving, interestingly) At one point, schumacher tries passing on a straight and looked like he was going to pull it off, at which point the other driver chopped him, nearly causing him to veer off into some grass in order to miss the collision. One of the commentators said, " Oh dear, what was (the name of the driver that chopped schumacher) thinking there. He nearly..." And then the other commentator cut him off with, "I know exactly what he was thinking: you aren't passing me, you arrogant little kraut." I got this in the united states, so this was an international broadcast.Ernham 16:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That couldn't have been a BBC commentary and it is the BBC you accused of producing attacks, so you should have no problem of withdrawing your comments about the BBC. I say it couldn't have been a BBC commentary because they only produce commentary for BBC Five Live, and you couldn't watch a radio commentary. I also refuse to believe that any ITV commentator would use the term "kraut". We seem to be going circles, if you want to add something about British or other bias against Schumacher you would have to reference it better than your comments here. Mark83 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I don't believe it was the BBC. I don't quite recall, as I was a teenager at the time. That wasn't the point. i was unaware you ahd some personal bend regarding my comment of BBC. Perhaps you should start by chasing down the article by them I originally mention, titled "tainted legacy", which claims that while schumacher is highly talented and comaprable to people like Senna, but that he has a "dark side", yet they never bring up the fact that if you control for years in formula-1, Schuamcher is a proverbial angel comapred to Senna, both on the track and off.Ernham 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well just to be clear, I don't work for the BBC, know anyone who does, or have any personal interest in it. I just couldn't believe that you singled it out for criticism the way you did. The BBC did produce the British F1 coverage before ITV, however I find it even less likely that they would use the term "kraut". I don't have any first hand knowledge of Senna's career - I've only been following F1 for about 10 years. Your latest comment is the first time you have mentioned a specific article, I'll see if I can find it. Mark83 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't say the British press is universaly anti-Schumacher. For example, the current ITV crew is actually quite sympathetic to Michael. James Allen is known to be a Ferrari fan (he named his son Enzo), and Martin Brundle was Schumacher's teammate and mentor at Benetton in 1992. The two were so close that Schumacher asked Ferrari to sign Brundle as his teammate in 1996, but Marlboro preferred Irvine. There are also more Schumi supporters than detractors in the respectable print media. Peter Windsor is a Schumi admirer, and the rest of the respectable journalists are pretty even-handed with Schumi. The only respected journalist with a consistent anti-Schumi stance is Nigel Roebuck. In the English tabloid media there are definetly mindless Schumi haters, but who cares about them? 141.161.36.76 02:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal/moving of sections of the "sportsmanship" section

75% of the sportmanship section is filled with FIA and their various associates, such as stewards, incompotence, having little to nothing to do with the supposed sportsmanship of Schumahcer.

This entire section, essentially:

"In 1998 season, Schumacher created controversy by winning the British GP in the pit lane. He was issued a 10s stop-and-go penalty for overtaking during the Safety Car laps. Knowing that a conventional in-stop-out penalty would lose him the race to championship contender Mika Häkkinen, the team delayed him going into the pit for the penalty the allowed number of laps (3) and only served the penalty after the end of the race, thus avoided the slow out lap from the pit that would have caused him to lose the race. However, because the stewards had incorrectly issued the penalty Schumacher escaped punishment as the stewards later rescinded the penalty. The penalty (for overtaking Alex Wurz under safety car on lap 43 of 60) should have been issued within 25 minutes but Ferrari were informed 6 minutes after the limit had expired. The handwritten notification was also unclear as to which penalty was actually being issued: a 10s stop/go, or 10 seconds added to Schumacher's race time (a penalty which could only be used to punish an infraction in the last 12 laps). As a result the three stewards involved handed in their licences at an extraordinary meeting of the FIA World Council.

In 2003 European Grand Prix, Schumacher was helped back to the track by marshals when he ended up high-sided on the kerb after a spin. Many fans falsely believed that this was illegal, as drivers may not receive outside assistance to get back on the track. However, an exception is made if a car is in a dangerous position, and the FIA judged that this was indeed the case. Schumacher's critics complained of a double-standard, which they believe, again falsely, was substantiated by the marshals' refusal to aid Fernando Alonso in the 2004 Italian Grand Prix when he was in a similar situation. However, the rules for this situation had changed as the exception in the 2003 rules had been removed in the 2004 version. Schumacher also received a push from the marshals in the 2005 Australian Grand Prix, although he retired anyway due to suspension damage after driving back to the pits. However, Nick Heidfeld, who was involved in the same incident, received no help from the marshals and had to retire. However, receiving a push from marshals when a car is in a dangerous situation is hardly a unique or even rare thing. A notable example, for instance, is Riccardo Patrese, who won the 1982 Monaco Grand Prix having received a push from the marshals after a spin on the penultimate lap." Ernham 03:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving? maybe if you can find a better title. Removal? No Mark83 11:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you better think of one, then, because as it stands, these sections need to be removed. They have nothing to do with Schumacher personally. They all belong in a wiki about the FIA. Maybe changing the section before its name to championship collisions and other controversies and add it there. Even that I do no about the inclusion of some of this. If one is to include all these as issues involving schumacher, well he's had the short end of the the stick when it comes to the FIA more often than not, despite what the British peanut hallery/press like to believe in their fairytale landErnham 12:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No they don't need to be removed. Ernham I think (and this is just my own personal opinion) that you need to take a step back and think what you're trying to achieve with your contributions to this article. If it is the white-washing of his entire career you've come to the wrong place. I know you've got a British press conspiracy theory, however criticism of Schumacher comes from a far wider field than the UK. Mark83 13:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe we have already heard your opinion on the matter. As far as I've seen, you have not adequately defended the position this belongs in a section regarding Schumachers sportsmanship. furthermore, if we count such incidents as note worthy for schumacher, then every F-1 winner in the last 30 years or so will need a section on the flippant nature of FIA, and we will call all the sections something in relation to sportsmanship. When you have done that with every driver satisfactorily, then we will but these back into the Schumacher wiki.

Ernham 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that you are blatantly opposed to anything that isn't complimentary. Your POV is blatant with edits such as describing Ferrari as a "juggernaut of world beaters". The above is a rediculous comment. A section is either justified or not; If it is justified the absence of a comparable section on other articles is irrelevant to its presence here. Mark83 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The section should be there, since there has been a lot of controversy about Schumacher's sportsmanship. However, I think the choice of incidents is pretty lousy. The first time that Schumi's sportsmanship was questioned was at the 1994 British GP (not taking the black flag), but this incident isn't in there. Another major issue is Schumacher's 'chop blocks', especially at race starts in 2000. The incidents that are listed don't actually have a lot to do with Schumi - Silverstone 1998 was a major screw-up by the stewards, and Nurburgring 2003 was completely legal. 141.161.36.76 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion request

The sentence should be as informative as possible. The links to other people who helped turn the team around into a winning team are useful to people wanting to know more. The reference is absolutely necessary; references are Misplaced Pages policy. The more informative sentence with the links to to other team members and a reference should stay. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i don't have any issues with the current one i just made, which happens to include them; however, the logic of this is quite stretching. Do we not also have to credit every person -- by name-- in the pit crew? all the management staff of Ferrari and etc. Shumacher is given the main credit for turnign them around because of not only his talent but because of his feedback. Almost every person that has been listed on there already Schumaacher actually talked into leaving benetton for Ferrari. Is their success not equally Schumachers since he was the key in bringing them on-board? There was nothing wrong with the original way i had, and most experts would agree that the success at ferrari has is almost completely the result of Michael Schuamcher. Even stirling moss said that in a documentary on michael several years back " It's not all the championships michael has won that has impressed me the most. It's what he did with Ferrari. I don't think anyone else could have ever done that" Ernham 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall of that was Jackie Stewart or Stirling Moss, actually. Hopefully i have not mis-atributed that. It's from one of the two Ernham 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The same logic extends to the new comment. If Schumacher was the only one to leave Benetton, Ferrari would never have been the team it is today. He was an essential part of its success, but so were the people that went with him. If Brawn, Byrne etc. had stayed at Benetton they could have got another driver and come at least close to their old success. Mark83 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should be mentioned that they followed him from Bentton at his urging (if that was the case). ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's documented, but I think it's pretty clear that Michael was given carte blanche as to who else should be headhunted.

I'm not all that happy with either "also-ran" or "struggling", to be honest - Ferrari won one Grand Prix and finished third in the Constructor's Championship the year before Michael joined them. That was a poor return for all the money that had already been thrown at the team, but hardly "struggling". -- Ian Dalziel 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the whole end of the sentence "turning this once struggling team into the most winning Formula One team in history". This suggests Ferrari had never won a thing but Schumacher, Brawn etc. had turned it into the most successful F1 team. In reality they made a once great team great again. Mark83 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Once good, once struggling, then great. Relative to each other, that is an adequate psuedo-timeline. when schumacher first joined, compared to its former or current self, Ferrari was indeed "struggling".Ernham 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you translate "an adequate pseudo-timeline" into English for me, please? I'm a bit thick at times... -- Ian Dalziel 01:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The third sentence conveys essentially the same thing. Ignore the first and second if it troubles you. Ernham 03:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

more info for Schumacher records

I don't have time to put this in now, but the following from The Times (UK), 11/9/06, p. 79, has info on his nearest rival for some of his records, quite interesting if it can be included, but maybe need a separate article for his records because this is getting quite lengthy. This article can also be found here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5923-2352113_2,00.html

SIMPLY THE BEST

Michael Schumacher’s career records make him far and away the most successful driver in Formula One history

Schumacher is the only driver to have finished an entire season on the podium (2002) and holds the record for the most successive races in the points with 24 (2001-2003) and most successive podium finishes with 19(2001-2002)

Schumacher also holds the record for the biggest winning points margin in a season with 67 in 2002, the year in which he became the fastest to win the title when he was crowned with six races to spare

With Rubens Barrichello, Schumacher holds the record for the most one-two finishes of any pairing in Formula One history with 24 between 2000-2005

Edward Gorman

Other records

FASTEST RACE LAPS

Michael Schumacher 75

Alain Prost 41 2nd

HAT-TRICKS (pole, win, fastest lap)

Michael Schumacher 22

Jim Clark 11 2nd

PODIUM FINISHES

Michael Schumacher 153

Alain Prost 106 2nd

TOTAL CAREER POINTS

Michael Schumacher 1,354

Alain Prost 768.5 2nd

WINS FROM POLE

Michael Schumacher 40

Ayrton Senna 29 2nd

POLE POSITIONS

Michael Schumacher 68

Ayrton Senna 65 2nd

GRAND PRIX WINS

Michael Schumacher 90

Alain Prost 51 2nd

DRIVERS’ CHAMPIONSHIPS

Michael Schumacher 7

Juan Manuel Fangio 5 2nd place

WINS IN A SEASON

Michael Schumacher, 2004 13

2002 11

1995, 2000, 2001 9

Nigel Mansell 9 2nd

195.222.43.148 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher owns McLaren F1?

Someone in the McLaren F1 page left a comment stating Michael Schumacher has a McLaren F1. Does anyone know this for sure, or has a source for this information? -g8or8de 12:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember back in the 2004 (or 2005) Race of Champions when Schumacher could only driver the Ferrari and the Buggy, but not the Citreon Rally Car. The reason for this was that Fiat didn't allow him to drive them because he's under contract at Ferrari, who are Fiat owned. So to own a company that is a "rival" company to Ferrari is kinda farfetched (Sorry spelt wrong). But then again, Niki Lauda is one of the "big boys" (if you like) at Ford and didn't win a single championship (or even a point!) with a Ford engine, unless someone has a proper reference :-P. So personally, I wouldn't rule it out - but my head is saying "no".--Skully Collins 13:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He means the car, not the formula one team :P

I don't think it would be that strange if he would, it's a bloody fast car, though I don't think he'd be showing it off very much because of his thing with Ferrari. JackSparrow Ninja 07:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sportsmanship

Is that part that in 2006 Monaco Grand Prix, Schumacher started at the back of the grid, but ended up finishing 5th relevant for sportsmanship?

The one reason that springs to mind is for the reader's interest and convenience, because I'm sure they'll ask how Schumacher did in the Grand Prix and will not want to scroll up/down to see how he did when it can be in the next sentance, although I do understand where your coming from with the question.--Skully Collins 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Schumacher is the first German to win F1 world championship. Jochen Rindt was Austrian.

Austrian nationality - but born in Germany (to German parents, I think?) -- Ian Dalziel 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Karl Jochen Rindt (April 18, 1942 - September 5, 1970) was an Austrian racing driver."

It doesn't matter where you're born, if you take Austrian nationality, you're an Austrian driver.

Formulaone.com also just lists him an Austrian. JackSparrow Ninja 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Has at last one German parent(possibly both). Had German citizenship. Born in Germany. Not sure you can get more German.Ernham 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Rindt raced as an Austrian and should be classified as such. I know that in F1, you aren't "represnting a country", but if I am correct Rindt was badged as such. As you can see Nico Rosberg has a German mother and has the German flag on the side of his car, so I think he is racing as a German and if he becomes, WDC, should be classified as such and not Finnish as well. Are we talking "representation" or "passports" - If the former, then Rindt would only be listed once, under Austrian. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But, you see, the comment is "the first German to...", it does not say the "first person to win X racing under the German flag" or something like that. It's incorrect to claim Schuamcher is the first German to win WDC; he wasn't.Ernham 09:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why I changed it to "German national" a while back - "German" is ambiguous, saying "national" or "citizen" wouldn't be. -- Ian Dalziel 11:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

South African GP

The sentance reads that he's won nearly all the Grand Prixs he's started in, yes I know and agree with because of the Turkish GP. But, unless I'm mistaken, you reverted a correct statement that he didn't win the South African GP, and he's started that race twice! See 1992 South African Grand Prix and 1993 South African Grand Prix, so it is indeed, correct.--Skully Collins 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual sentence has a caveat in it that you seem to be missing, which i already told you to pay attention to.Ernham 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Don't know if anyone's aiming for Good Article or Featured Article ststus for this page, but if so you'll need to lose the trivia section, which is normally viewed as being 'un-encyclopaedic' by reviewers. Most of it could either be incorporated into the text or lost. The very first bullet would make an excellent way of addressing the 'greatest' issue by the way. Instead of trying to state that he is the greatest (unverifiable!) why not state in the lead that he was voted as such in a BBC poll, which is a verifiable statement? Just some suggestions, anyway.

I've seen numerous articles that have been featured around here with trivia sections. I think some of the things are interesting, yet they don't really have a place elsewhere IMO. You'd have to stuff 90% of it into the intro paragraphs.Ernham 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with reference section "a b c d e f"

All those cites are supposed to go to the official formula one website biography, instead the link back and forth between the refrence section and the spot they are cited. The actual source is missing, basically, but the linking works. http://www.formula1.com/archive/halloffame/driver/7.html that's the source.Ernham 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Mark83 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Ernham 20:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

possibly gutting the second intro paragraph

This one: "Schumacher currently holds almost every record in Formula One, including those for most drivers' championships, race victories, fastest laps, pole positions, and most races won in a single season. He is the first Formula One driver to win at every track he has started on at least once, starting from his first world championship title year(excluding the recently introduced Turkish GP). He is the world's first billionaire athlete, with an estimated yearly salary over 100 million dollars, tens of millions of which he donates to humanitarian causes." Particularly the first two-thirds of it. Instead, adding "see below link" after the "holds almost every record" comment. i think it's excessive, given we have a whole section devoted to summarizing many of those records. No need to dwell on it. Then add some more stuff to the intro found in the trivia section perhaps. Just discussing it now, I don't hvae time to do muhc at the moment. Thoughts? Ernham 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I think the fact that he holds the Championships, wins and poles records is very significant and deserves to be mentioned in the intro. These are probably the three major records in F1. I agree that the "most victories in a season" and "win at every track he has started on at least once" should be removed as they are 'lower-level' records and you could easily substitute them for several others that he holds. Most fastest laps could be kept, but it just makes the sentence longer. – AlbinoMonkey 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That's probably what I started with in the first version of this lead, but it's one of those sections people like to add to! 4u1e 13:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Going for FA

After the end of the championship, I believe we should review and work a lot on this article and try to make it a FA. We have the example of Damon Hill, who's also a (former) Formula 1 driver and it's a FA now. I have some ideas.

1. - The article is too long, almost 100 kb now. We have to reduce some parts, for example the 2006 season.
2. - The most recent seasons, specially the 2006 are too large when compared to others. That needs to be reduced and all seasons should have more or less the same space.
3. - search for more and more references
4. - find old images we can use, such as the cars he drove in the 90's and pictures of him from those times and younger.
5. - Get the Attributes section better: finding references and re-writing it, maybe.
6. - find a reference for the BBC poll referred at the Trivia section. It may be useful to stop the controversy in the lead about him being the greatest or the best.
7. - although the Retirement section is cool, it is big, so maybe reducing it, or creating another article for it and just leave a few people responses wouldn't be bad.

Add more ideas, discuss these and let's prepare to work? --Serte 12:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of what Serte says above. Can I also suggest that you step up gradually. With Damon Hill we found it useful to go through Good Article and Peer Review first to get a good number of views. 4u1e 12:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the WP:GA process takes a while, why not nominate it now? (After reading the criteria first, of course!) 4u1e 13:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that if Michael wins the championship (looking very likely at the moment), this article will get hit massively for a couple of weeks after the end of the season. Some improvements can be made now, but I think we should wait until about a month or two after the end of the season to nominate it for FA - one of the criteria is that the article is stable. An attempt at GA would be fine for now though IMO. – AlbinoMonkey 13:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe also we should wait until the end of the championship, as I said above. Let's check the GA criteria list.--Serte 13:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

93 technology

The current words suggest that benetton did not have active suspension, automatic gearbox etc in 1993. While this was true in 1992, in 93 my recollection is that Benetton had as much technology as anyone else in the pitlane - even including four wheel steer. I will try to find a ref, but I believe the current words are wrong. 4u1e 12:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made this comment before as well. The current wording is misleading.

Turkey

I guess I need the following explaining to me, because I think it contradicts itself, and I think it needs deleting:

He is the first Formula One driver to win at every track he has started on at least once, starting from his first world championship title year (excluding the recently introduced Turkish GP).

He hasn't won the Turkish GP, and thus hasn't won every track he's started on. Apathetic 07:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He was won all, EXCEPT X. It's a common thing to say, you may see it as a contradiction and technically it is, but people use it on everyday situations and I don't really tink it's a problem. --Serte 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it rather a convoluted record though? He's won on every track except Turkey and Kyalami, Mexico City, and Donington (latter 3 all pre 1994)? Also it seems odd to set the time period to 1994 - 2006 (i.e. since his first championship), but include Estoril, where he hasn't won since 1993, outside the period in question. For my money it's there are too many caveats on this for it to be valid - what do others think? 195.137.77.175 07:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops - that was me, got logged out and didn't notice. 4u1e 07:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be reworded. It's fine to emphasise how many tracks he's won races on, but I think "the first driver to..." has to go, because you could use the "except XYZ" to include anyone else you wanted in the record. Apathetic 07:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one's objected. I've deleted the sentence. I could have replaced it with something like "Has won on the majority of circuits that he has competed on", but thought that rather weak, and anyway I think I saw a comment round here somewhere that there were too many records mentioned in the lead. Just to reiterate the logic - too many caveats in the statement to say 'is the first to...'. The caveats are 1. since winning the drivers championship, 2. except Turkey,which is recent and 3. except Estoril, where he has raced, but not won since winning the drivers championship. --4u1e 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also checked out out Fangio's record - one could say of him that he " won on every race track he started, except Pescara (only ever used once) and Aintree (where two of the British GPs during Fangio's career were held)". Very similar, but even less caveated, so one really cannot say that Schumacher was the first to achieve a similar feat. I suspect Alberto Ascari must have a achieved something similar as well, he went on a great winning streak in 1952-53. Cheers. --4u1e 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai 2006

Adding this, since there seems to be so much misinformation and speculation being spread in these sections, as well as complete NPOV nonsense, even from a mod?? Crazy. Discuss any substantive changes you thik need to occur to the sections here firstErnham 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My changes

• Only Schumacher, reaffirming his title of the Rainmaster, would be able to put up a fight for pole position against the Michelin using team

How does editorialising about hyperbolic titles like "Rainmaster" count as NPOV? That's why I removed it. The note that Michelin had better tyres is noted, I have simply condensed sentences to tell you the same thing

• "sunny" Shanghai - where did I state that? The race was wet, as is noted in the article - the drivers started on intermediate wets and as the race progressed, the track dried and the drivers ended the race on dry tyres.
• I made the note about Alonso losing 3s per lap during the middle phase because that is what happened, after he switched tyres. How else does a car slow down by 3s, and when it rechanges tyres, it speeds up again (It wasn't a wing change or other fixes that were done). Every news outlet has noted this
• I removed the part about the drivers supposedly blocking the whole track from the preceding edit because the track is at least 5-6 cars wide and one can't block the whole track.
• The comment that Schumacher was the only Bridgestone car in the top 10 was removed because it implies give the impression that the rest of the Bridgestone cars dropped out of the top 10 because of tyres but Schumacher stayed in the top 10 due to sheer skill - Toyota and Williams are the other non-minnow bridgestone teams and they have been out of the top ten for the whole year.
• I deleted the reference to Massa as he too started from way back and began to drive quickly and pass cars when Schumacher was doing the same. The old sentence implies that Schumacher was routing everybody whilst Massa was nowhere - if we note Massa's lesser skill everywhere, perhaps we should also note how many times Fisichella goes off the track and editorialise so that everybody sees that Alonso is better than Fisi?
• Schumacher was 20-25s behind after passing the Hondas and Raikkonen had a breakdown.
• How do we know that Schumacher was driving conservatively?

If he did say this, feel free to put back in.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

you have totally misrepresented reality. Massa was hardly doing anything that whole race. I think he actually lost a place, not counting retirements. I will clip everything over here and tell you what is wrong about it when i have time. However, for now i wanted to give a general apology to all involved as to someone altering the old edits. what happened was that the guy just below you added a lot of those things, such as "sunny" race condtions, and when I was trying to track them down, for some reason it looked like you had done it. Also, the paragraph was dramatically altered, so when I looked for where i expected it to be in yours, I didn't see it at first glance.Ernham 05:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

>>my comment

• Only Schumacher, reaffirming his title of the Rainmaster, would be able to put up a fight for pole position against the Michelin using team

How does editorialising about hyperbolic titles like "Rainmaster" count as NPOV? That's why I removed it. The note that Michelin had better tyres is noted, I have simply condensed sentences to tell you the same thing

>>Is he called the "rainmaster"? Yes. Note that in the intro this is talked about, yet the article doesn't have too many demonstrations of why he earned it, so i thought it was a good idea to bring it back up. Did he perform incredibly well under wet conditions? yes he did. I don't see too much POV there, but I **could** see removing it and then demonstrating how well he did by facts. Gee, as a matter of fact, I DID JUST THAT-- you deleted it. (see below)

• "sunny" Shanghai - where did I state that? The race was wet, as is noted in the article - the drivers started on intermediate wets and as the race progressed, the track dried and the drivers ended the race on dry tyres.

>>This was a mistake; it was the guy below you in the edit history. Sorry. You dind't add that.

• I made the note about Alonso losing 3s per lap during the middle phase because that is what happened, after he switched tyres. How else does a car slow down by 3s, and when it rechanges tyres, it speeds up again (It wasn't a wing change or other fixes that were done). Every news outlet has noted this.

>>Was Alonso losing time or were other people gaining time in relation to current track conditions? Clearly you take a POV stance. The point is, however, you deleted an important section of qualifying, yet you add this. And what is this? PURE SPECULATION. You remove pure facts that apparently you dind't "like", for pure speculation you apparently "liked". Sure, it seems like the case it was his tires, but you don't KNOW that; you speculate. He said in the press conference that it was NOT A MISTAKE TO changed tires. Sure, they slowed him down, but he said he HAD to change tires. Why? Because one side was completely bald! Why were they bald? Because he was racing so aggresively the first 12 laps! His teamate didn't have to change, why? His tires weren't balding! He was slowing down the field to supposrt Alonso! Hello? Alonso's mistake was driving too aggresively, and he is well known for being to hard on his tires.

• I removed the part about the drivers supposedly blocking the whole track from the preceding edit because the track is at least 5-6 cars wide and one can't block the whole track.

>>Yes, you can essentially block the whole or almost the whole track, unless you risk smashing into someone on the next corner. you could have changed the wording a little bit, mentioning their unorthodox blocking method to some degree. Instead you compeltely delete it. gee, go figure.

• The comment that Schumacher was the only Bridgestone car in the top 10 was removed because it implies give the impression that the rest of the Bridgestone cars dropped out of the top 10 because of tyres but Schumacher stayed in the top 10 due to sheer skill - Toyota and Williams are the other non-minnow bridgestone teams and they have been out of the top ten for the whole year.

>>Top 12, top 12 cars. THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE MASSA COMPARSSION WAS GIVEN! He has essentially the same car/support/etc. No if ands or buts there. He is a perfect xomparisson for schumacher because of that. It was SHOWING how well Schumacher did given the circumstances he was in(and are you saying the "minnows" disproporionately use bridgestones??), see above if you have forgotten about "point one" above. This is total nonsense.

• I deleted the reference to Massa as he too started from way back and began to drive quickly and pass cars when Schumacher was doing the same. The old sentence implies that Schumacher was routing everybody whilst Massa was nowhere - if we note Massa's lesser skill everywhere, perhaps we should also note how many times Fisichella goes off the track and editorialise so that everybody sees that Alonso is better than Fisi?

>>No he didn't. Massa did next to nothing in that race, even after their was a dry racing line about 2/3s into the race. He kept spinning out and going off the track on the corners, all the way up to his retirement. did you even watch it?

• Schumacher was 20-25s behind after passing the Hondas and Raikkonen had a breakdown.

>>Umm, that's not what I recall. I don't recall him being aided by any retirements. And when he was finally in 3rd, the lead was about 8 seconds from him.

• How do we know that Schumacher was driving conservatively?

>>Maybe because it was obvious? Maybe because the commentators(at least the ones here) all noted such? Maybe--mostly just maybe-- because in the press conference he said PRECISELY THAT if you bothered to watch it! He didn't say conservatively, but he said "Taking it easy". >>Ernham 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no hard feelings about the vandalism incident

I did watch that race. Here's a report . Massa had an engine change and was forced to start last. By the end of the race (when he was involved in the collision) he was battling for 9th and had passed the Williams, Toyotas, and was on the back of Honda and Coulthard and maybe 5s behind the BMW etc. So the prior comment gives an impression that he only did crashes/spins all day. His pace was not too bad, Martin Brundle noted that in the middle phase he also was getting close to the pace of the front three. Yes he also did a spin, but Fisi also did a spin in the last part of the race and lost 15s whilst Alonso did not. I personally feel that the comparison to Massa was particular obtrusive - it's true that Schumacher was the best that day but the amount of info added there gives me the impression that he was overdoing. I also note that in the Alonso article we don't note how far he is in front of Fisi. eg he was perhaps 40s ahead on the same car in Hungary despite starting in front and then Fisi crashed. I do think that the hammering out of Massa's relative lack of performance is somewhat excessive - we don't note the reverse in Turkey where Schumacher didn't keep pace after the first stop, or in the case of Alonso we don't harp on and on about how far he leaves Fisi behind.

As for the tyre changing thing, that's fine, I didn't get the part after the race as they were running late for the news and cut it off. The article will tell you that Raikkonen jumnped Fisi and then retired after, with Schu in 4 and Kimi in 2. For the blocking thing, did you mean the part where Fisi pulled side by side and they didn't pass? - That's true that they did that, but then Fisi drove straight past him and so did Schumacher, so I think it is irrelevant, as Schumacher didn't pass a double wall. The rainmaster thing is still hyperbole - we don't say - "the hat-trick proved that xxxxx is the golden boot" - that is unencyclopedic. Feel free to note that he did a very good job to minimise his losses in adverse conditions - I thought I already noted that with the Michelin superiority. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Suzuka 2006

Adding this, since there seems to be so much misinformation and speculation being spread in these sections, as well as complete NPOV nonsense, even from a mod?? Crazy. Discuss any substantive changes you thik need to occur to the sections here first.Ernham 03:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ernham, I highly suggest you read up on WP:NPOV and vandalism before you make the edits/summaries that you have here. Your edit and summary are intirely inappropriate, as is this post. Misplaced Pages is not for narratives of seasons, but encyclopedic entries. Blnguyen's edits were paring down your POV editing. We welcome that you continue to contribute, but I have to revert the edit to the NPOV version before you wrote it. Don't continue the edit war, and that is final. Teke 04:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic is cutting out the fact that Schumacher was the only bridgestone user to qualify in the the top 12, yet adding an entire paragraph speculating about alonso's tyres, lieing about the race conditions? And the Wiki is about WHO, again? Not Alonso. Now you tell me what that says about his edits.Ernham 04:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum for sports talk akin to the radio. I don't think you are right or wrong in your personal assesment of the race. You edit was inappropriate and filled with POV and words to avoid; the ones prior may be leaning POV, but your edit is definitively pro-Schumacher If the editing of a section on accomplishments is of such contention, remove it and hash it out at another time and not in the article space. I'm asking that you calm down (I've the experience to sight when a user is getting hot under the coller) and remember that this can be worked out with time. Continued pushing will result in a block based on the three revert rule, which exists to calms these fires. Teke 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As per the rules, reverting vandalism and slander does not count in the revert total. It was claimed that the racing conditions were sunny. Oh really, that's why it RAINED AGAIN during the race? You ever heard your weather man say "It's going to be sunny with rain this morning"? Nah, thought not. An as said, deleting important information regarding schuamcher, FACTUAL information mind you(qualifying result), and adding several sentences speculating about ALONSO's tyres? Ernham 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, chill out. Your rhetoric is not working, what with the rhetorical questions and assuming bad faith in my answers. You are talking about a single controversy, not the grand picture of the article. This is my last nice plea that you have the sober realization that this is, in fact, a lame edit war to have. Tires and rain for a singular race will in no way diminish Schumacher as one of the greatest Formula 1 drivers ever (and I know of him, even though I don't follow Formula 1). Let it go now, take a few days off, or the adminhat gets put on and you are forced a few days off. It's not a threat, it's an option to you. Blnguyen won't be warring over it if you won't, even your edit summaries are hostile. Take a time out. Teke 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm hostile because I have to put up with 24-7 vandalism/slander, and when it comes ditectly from an admin, that's just ridiculous. It's fine you don't plan to reply, don't consider this or my following two posts in this section and the one above, either, but I'm going to through the original version of what was the verion Binguyen was trying to to pass off as reality, under the pretences of cleaning up NPOV no less. I urge you to read them, however. Ernham 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I smell abuse of admin powers. Binguyen had written that the Shangai race track had "sunny" conditions. Now that edit curiously no longer mentions this complete fabritcation, and instead it says what I had written there; someone edited the edit without leaving an edit stamp. This seems an outragous abuse of admin powers. Ernham 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, let me tell you that admin abilities are only three extra functions: delete, protect, and block. Edit summaries cannot be changed as they are vital to the GFDL; not even developers can remove or change them. Oversight can hide libelous or copyright violations, but it is not possible that the edit changed.

Now, if you have contentions with a section, and encounter such conlfict, remove the section and use a summary along the line of "Let's take this to the talk page." The disputes only harm Misplaced Pages. I'm not saying that Blnguyen or yourself has it right of wrong, your edit summaries and hostility do not build the project. Also note that edits made by administrators are not usually admin actions; while we are the "official face of Misplaced Pages" we are editors too. Look at the summaries, and you will see the difference in tones taken by Blnguyen and yourself:

1. (cur) (last) 03:46, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (Reverted vandalism. You are clipping out huge chucks for no reason. You lie, calling Shanghai "sunny" and speculate all over. Change the tense, nothing else. Use the talk page.)
2. (cur) (last) 03:30, 9 October 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) (I'm not lying and I'm not vandalising - some of the stuff needs to be cahnged for tense as it is now in the past)
3. (cur) (last) 03:09, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (Revert massive vandalism/total lies/complete NPOV non-sense. No more substantive changes to china/japan until you take it to talk page)
4. (cur) (last) 02:58, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (→1991-1993 - getting quite sick of the vandals.)
5. (cur) (last) 02:25, 9 October 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) (→2006 - NPOVised, engine failures usually sudden, minimised stuff about other drivers, rm stuff about BSTONE wets, as Toyota is very poor car -invald comparison,CHina pass very easy LOL)
6. (cur) (last) 02:11, 9 October 2006 220.237.166.222 (Talk | block) (→2006)
7. (cur) (last) 02:03, 9 October 2006 60.240.81.55 (Talk | block) (→Sportsmanship)
8. (cur) (last) 01:39, 9 October 2006 Patstuart (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by 201.129.83.154 to last version by 201.41.243.253)
9. (cur) (last) 01:37, 9 October 2006 201.129.83.154 (Talk | block)
10. (cur) (last) 23:56, 8 October 2006 201.41.243.253 (Talk | block)
11. (cur) (last) 22:49, 8 October 2006 GregorB (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Team orders)
12. (cur) (last) 21:28, 8 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) m

Blnguyen was trying to clean up the aritcle and didn't mean any disfavor to you in particular, your edit was a couple below IP contributions that also were edited. I'm off to bed, I do hope you see my point on your approach and that y'all will resolve the conflict peacefully. Teke 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, someone EDITED an edit, and it did not leave an edit stamp(those things you listed above I'm referring to as edit stamps), so posting those does nothing. As far as I know, regular users cannot do that, and it's not just the "sunny" part that is missing. Other sentences/words were also curiously replaced on the old edits.Ernham 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When did I insert the word "sunny" into Shanghai? Can you substantiate your allegations? nothing has been deleted/censored from the Schumacher article. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I've been working here and there, giving sugestions on this article to make it FA, checking it, but I don't know what happened. Is is just me, or the 2006 section isn't NPOV at all right now? And why delete valid references just as those for the formula1.com when you can leave it there? I don't know what happened but this is definately not a step forward no Featured Article status...--Serte 18:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention it (the 2006 section) is way too long. SubSeven 19:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trimming down the 2006 section

I'm going to try to significantly trim this down to a approximately 4-5, maybe a little more on races that had controversial events, sentences per race, as opposed to the current, which ranges from 4-5 to 50+ sentences. Heh. If you don't like that I gutted/changed something, post exactly what was removed and why you think it deserves to be incorporated in the article. The section should be written in relation to schumacher. Outstanding, good or bad, events should be noted if they directly relate to Schumacher, but not overly dwelt on. So post exactly what was removed and your arguments for why it should be included, keeping in mind space is at a premium.Ernham 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm going to hold off until the GP is over, as the results could significantly impact the summary-type statements of the entire season.Ernham 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Popularity thing

WRT to the thing about popularity. I would have to say that Ralf Schumacher was 19 by the time his brother became WDC and Heidfeld also was a teenager by then. Can you back up your assertions that SChumacher specifically caused a boom in the skill level and talent pool of racing drivers. What about participation rates for young drivers. At the moment it implies he specifically causes more success for Germany at the highest level. He is not a racing coach nor does he run an F1 academy. He has definitely increased popular viewing, but has he increased grassroots participation? At the most we should note the grassroots increase. It is inapporporiate to claim that he is responsible for success of other elite drivers. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Unassessed Formula One articles
• Unknown-importance Formula One articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles