Michael Schumacher received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Michael Schumacher has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Motorsport GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Formula One GA‑class

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 articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Sports and Games GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Germany GA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sports Car Racing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7

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

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

Good thing. Me and other people worked hard to get this article better and GA status is a big step. FA will be hard, but why not trying? What do people here think the article needs to get there? Give your suggestions... Cheers --Serte * Talk * Contribs 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done all. For FA - if we're looking to make this a really good article - the quality of the references needs to be improved. We've had discussions above about some of the news articles we've used where the reporting is perhaps not of a particularly high quality. While I believe we've accurately addressed the subject, a featured article ought really to be drawn from the best sources. A quick search of Amazon shows that there is plenty of material available.....it's just getting hold of it! 4u1e 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Agree, for FA, references from books are more reliable than simply from the internet. --Cyktsui 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it's true most books are reliable, books written by respected F1 journalists are the ultimate source. Alexj2002 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the ones I meant - for this case, any of the more respectable biographies and the Autocourse season summaries would do very well. I've got some of the latter now, so I suppose I should employ them, but I don't have any books speicfically on Schumacher (I think The Piranha Club is probably a good ref for Schumacher's transfer from Jordan to Benetton, by the way). 4u1e

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

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

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

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

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

Mike, strictly speaking, if you want to change the article, the onus is on you to find the evidence to support the changes - from the language used I don't think the original comment was intended as a serious constructive suggestion. Ideally the supporting evidence would be a referenced statement from a reputable source (Autocourse season review, Autosport, a biography of MS or history of F1, FIA website).

Looking at whether MS has been DSQ/EXC more often than any other driver, see this link www.chicanef1.com. The list of driver disqualifications puts 12 drivers ahead of Schumacher. Admittedly three of those (Brundle, Johannson and Bellof) were disqualified from an entire season for, if anything, misdemeanours by their Tyrrell team in 1984. Nonetheless Takuma Sato, John Watson and Nigel Mansell, to take only 3 examples, all have 3 DSQs to their names. Schumacher has been DSQ only twice. Schumacher is the only driver to have been excluded from the results of a world championship, but this is (or was last time I looked) mentioned in the lead and in the article itself. (Edit: Yes, mentioned in lead, and a whole section in the article). Schumacher was also excluded from two races in 1994 - I haven't yet found a list of driver exclusions, but two isn't particularly high. 4u1e 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Irvine was excluded from 3 races in 1994, after being judged to have caused an accident at the Brazilian Grand Prix (see www.grandprix.com). So we can't say that Schumacher holds a 'record' for most exclusions either. 4u1e 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1997 offical results

Pos Driver Nationality Team Points

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

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

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

This statement in the article needs proofs. Actually Schumi won both titles and in 1995 Benetton won teams' championship too. How come can Benetton still be inferior to Williams? In my opinion Benetton was clearly better than Williams in 1994 and 1995 and statistics show this.

The only claim I found of that is the one on 1995 and for that...

From the Formula 1 Official Website here "Some in the Williams team thought he should have done better in what was the best car and Schumacher suggested he was a second-rate driver." If it says on the official site...--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article says "During these two championship seasons, the Benetton was not the best car in the field"

First off, some observations: Michael Schumacher took 8 wins and 92 points in 1994. Jos Verstappen took just 10 points and only two podiums. He's considered a fair driver and yes, he was inexperienced and had some bad luck, but it doesn't seem that the Benetton was the car to have (compare Damon Hill's perhaps somewhat similar position in 1993, when he won three races in the Williams in his debut season).

Verstappen did only ten races - that was ten points from only three finishes. Driven by Wendlinger and Verstappen, the second Benetton scored points every time it finished. Hardly uncompetitive? -- Ian Dalziel 06:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendlinger? I though JJ Lehto was the other driver? Anyway - it was a perfectly good car, but we're talking about which was the best car (which is probably a fruitless exercise, actually, so I'll concede defeat shortly :D). None of the Benetton second drivers ran right at the front (to my recollection, which is not a referenceable item). Both Hill and Coulthard, a rookie and a driver in his second season only, were competitive with Schumacher later in the season, in the Williams, so we could infer that the Williams was a better car. All WP:OR of course, I'm just trying to establish that it is worth looking for something we can reference to support the words 'the Benetton was not the best car' for 1994. Until we do (and I haven't succeeded yet) we should probably remove the words. Cheers. 4u1e 10:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Of course it was Lehto - which means it did finish out of the points twice. My objection is that the phrase we have suggests that it was consistently inferior - I think it was, at times at least, clearly the best car. The Williams looked to handle better, but I think much of that was down to the Benetton being developed to suit Schumacher's driving style. -- Ian Dalziel 11:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that in the early season the Benetton was a better (easier to drive) car, but I'm not at all convinced that applies over the whole season.

1995 season is actually less clear cut - Johnny Herbert took two wins in the sister Benetton - but we have a reference for that one.

However, that's my view and therefore not much use to us here. What we need is references for 1994, I'll get back to you..... 4u1e 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What references? Those ones that show Benetton was inferior? At least Schumi's Benetton was better in most of the season. Remember, he won either the first and the last race of the season. And still some say Benetton was slower. I thought there is no place for biased attitude in Wikipedia. Let me give you some stats I've collected.

Poles: 2001 - 11; 2000 - 9; 2004 - 8; 2002 - 7; 1994 - 6

Average positions: 2001 - 1,71; 1994 - 1,79

Average gaps: 1994 - -0,06%; 2001 - -0,01%

Fastest laps: 2004 - 10; 1994 - 8

Average positions: 1994 - 1,50; 2004 - 1,56

Average gaps: 1994 - -0,20%; 2004 - -0,12%

Victories: 2004 - 13; 2002 - 11; 1995 - 9; 2000 - 9; 2001 - 9; 1994 - 8

Average positions per classified race: 1994 - 1,20; 2002 - 1,41

Race distace in the lead: 2004 - 61,41%; 2002 - 53,72%; 1994 - 52,27%

And remember, in 1994 Schuey took part in only 14 races.

My point is that although the combination of Schumacher and the Benetton B194 was the best, that may not have been 100% down to the car. Schumacher was a supremely talented driver and there's something odd about the fact that Benetton couldn't get either of their other drivers competitive in the car. I take it the point of the stats is to emphasise that the Schumi/Benetton combination in 1994 performed as well at the Schumi/Ferrari combination in 2004? Excellent point, but if we compare Barrichello and Lehto/Verstappen in 1994 we get a very different picture. In the second half of the 1994 season you could argue that the Williams was a better car. Having said that, neither your nor my arguments are exactly the point: I haven't found a decent reference that supports the Benetton not being the best car, so we probably need to revise the words. Cheers. 4u1e 10:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give any references or proofs that show thar Benetton wasn't the best in the second half of the season? Schumi won the last race either, and combined with the stats given by me, isnt't this enough? And for me, it's quite strange that the car's performance is deduced from a second driver. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.132.214 (talk • contribs)

If you think a little, you'll find it's not strange. Why are you just comparing a car using one driver instead of comparing both drivers? Schumacher did very well in both Bennetton and Ferrari, but his teammates did complete opposite results. How do you explain that? That Bennetton was a worse car, but Schumacher's talent guaranteed a WC title. I think that's the point made by 4u1e.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explain that with inequal treatment in the team. Losses almost 2 second per lap are not normal. Was Lotus 1986 sixth best because Dumfries lost to Senna in qualis and fastest laps by oves 3 seconds, for example?

And why do you think Schumacher is the only talented driver in F1? If someone has often best car, ther's no difficulty in collecting victories and titles. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.132.214 (talk • contribs)

I probably haven't been clear enough: Although I think that I have supported a case for continuing to look for a reference for Benetton not being outright 'the best' car in 1994, I have conceded that I don't currently have such a reference. I agree that the wording should currently only say that the Benetton wasn't the best in 1995, because we do have a ref for that. I think the current version does this, unless 88.196.132.214 can still see a problem?

Having got that out of the way, one counter to 88.196.132.214's point about team mates is that in the two races (Italy and Portugal) which Schumacher did not contest in 1994, where inequal treatment should not have been an issue, neither of the Benetton drivers was competitive.

Re Lotus in 1986, there clearly was unequal treatment in the team that year. The story goes that Senna vetoed having Derek Warwick as his team mate because he didn't feel the team could support two top level drivers. I'm not sure that applies to Benetton, certainly not in the two races I mentioned above. A top team being unable to support two drivers is less convincing in the mid 1990s, which was the problem with Lotus in the mid 1980s. A top team favouring one driver for the championship is very plausible, but not to the degree that it would have to be at Benetton, where the second drivers were so uncompetitive that they took no points off Hill during the season, which would have made Schumacher's win far easier. And certainly it would be true that Senna flattered the Lotus in 86 - it wasn't as good a car as he made it look. 4u1e 18:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Benetton's second drivers' problem if they are unable to achieve victories with such a good packet. But as statistics and results show, at least the car in the hands of Schumacher was better than Williams. It's also no secret that Schumi's teammates were treated less good than he himself. You say that in the event of 1994, we should consider Schu/Ben packet. But why don't you do this in the case of 2001, 2002 and 2004 too when he had clearly better equipment? How come can stats about those seasons be even weaker than 1994? As for 1995 I probably agree that B was not as good as Williams. Hadn't Hill retired so many times because of driver errors, he would have gotten the title.

The Williams being a better car in 94-95 is a false story cooked up by Schumacher fans to give a note of credibility to a life which lacks it.

The article didn't say that the Williams was the best car. I'd be quite happy for it to say that the Benetton was not clearly superior - it wasn't, but I don't believe the Williams was either. -- Ian Dalziel 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Matchett in his book The Mechanic's Tale claims that the Benetton was the best car in 1995. This claim is also backed by Herbert's two wins and Benetton's Constructors' Championship. In 1994 the Benetton was strong early (see Letho's strong performances early), but by the end of the season the Williams was superior (Benetton were absoltuely nowhere when Schumi was serving his ban). So the Benetton was not the best car for all of 1994-1995, but during parts of those years it was the class of the field. 141.161.36.76 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already conceded that I don't have a reference for Benetton not being the best in 1994 (although I can't accept 'Lehto's strong performances early on' as an accurate reflection! He didn't compete in the first two races due to a testing accident, he qualified a second off Schumacher at San Marino (didn't compete after an accident at the start), qualified 17th at Monaco and finished 7th. He qualified well in Spain, but still behind Schumacher, Hill and Hakkinen (the latter in a McLaren-Peugeot!). He didn't score a point until Canada (where he qualified 20th), before being dropped.)

Anyway, how about something along the following lines: "Schumacher's Benetton was competitive in his hands throughout 1994 and 1995, although his team mates rarely ran at the front and at times the Williams was a superior car."? Thoughts? 4u1e 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e i agree something has to be done about that section since there is no definitive answer on which car was better, for this page to claim it either way, is just stupid and a little bias ----- John Davies

John/Alex, defining 'best' is difficult. I'm reasonably convinced that the statement I have suggested above describes the situation reasonably accurately, but it's not easy to find references to support it, so I don't really feel justified in putting it in yet. I have some doubts about the Steve Matchett comment above, I checked the book's index for B195 in a bookshop the other day, and found no comment about the B195 being the best car on the relevant pages. I didn't read the whole book though (they get upset about that kind of thing!) so could easily have missed it. 4u1e 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 4u1e. I think that's the best way to put it.

It's pretty common knowledge, or at least I though, and at least we can use the official website as a reference. JackSparrow Ninja 20:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "common knowledge" is that it is all too often wrong. There was a widespread opinion that the Williams was superior - mainly, in my opinion, because of the twitchy reactive setup which MS has always preferred, which does look less settled in fast corners. I don't think either car was in any season head and shoulders above the other - the advantage varied circuit to circuit. I can't see how there could be any objective evidence which car was "superior" - by all means let us document what the popular perception was, but let us not elevate what could only ever have been an opinion to factual status. -- Ian Dalziel 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of the situation sounds plausible to me, Ian. That's why I've (tried to) suggest wording here which relates more to the documented performance of Schumacher and his team mates, and not so much to the car. Even then, I've still expressed an unreferenced opinion about the Williams performance. I'm uncomfortable about this without better referencing. I'm open to suggestions, particularly if someone can find some better references.4u1e 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in discussion has been removed in recent edits - since we can't agree between us what should be said, perhaps this is for the best! :) 4u1e 14:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official F-1 quote is pretty explicit. Now, if it had been stated "Some in the Williams team thought he should have done better in what they felt/believed was best car...", then I could see confusion. None exists hereErnham 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the debate above was not about the phrase which you and Ian have been editing this evening, Ernham but the one with similar meaning which used to be at the start of the next paragraph. When the debate started (on 30 November last year!) it referred to both the 1994 and 1995 seasons, and the F1 reference only refers to the 1995 season. Another version of the phrase in question was deleted by you a couple of days ago, a move I'm happy with as none of us has yet come up with a decent reference for whether the Benetton was or wasn't the best car in '94. 4u1e 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote does say "Some in the Williams team thought...". It cannot be anything but a statement of opinion - and second-hand opinion at that. There is no objective way of proving which was the "best" car. I am quite happy for the article to say that the Williams was generally considered to be superior, or that the Benetton was not clearly better. A bald statement that the Williams was 'superior' is POV. -- Ian Dalziel 06:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor English comprehension skills are not a proxy for calling something POV. Does the statement on the official f-1 site also mean that the "williams team THOUGHT Schumacher called Hill a secondrate driver"? It's the exact same argument you are making since there is no comma. Ernham 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal abuse is no substitute for reasoned argument. Post a link to a comparative study of the two cars done on a variety of circuits with a variety of driving styles and you might have a point. A journalist's report of the opinion within Williams doesn't cut it as a fact, even if it's on a site sanctioned by Bernie Ecclestone. And no, that isn't "the exact same argument". Clauses don't have to be separated by commas.

We have to reach consensus on the article - another personal insult and instant revert is not a good way to achieve that. -- Ian Dalziel 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comma before the "and" would mean that that clause could stand on its own without having to rely on the previous portion of the sentence to be completely understood. If the writer had intended on stating that it was only "some in the williams" team that thought the williams was the best car, then they would have further qualified that part, as I stated when you first began this bogus crusade to rewrite the rules of English sentence structure.Ernham 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how it could be an objective fact? How could the Williams team know which was the better car, other than by results? "Bogus crusade" isn't going far towards eliminating the personal abuse, by the way. Hold your breath and see if you can discuss something just once without resorting to insults? -- Ian Dalziel 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an objective fact, like many things on wikipedia. It is the closest thing to being a NPOV version of events however, being the official site for F-1 info. Ernham 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. The statement that the Williams was superior cannot be a statement of fact because no-one ever had the means of testing it. It could only ever have been an opinion - and I have said several times that I am happy for the article to mention that opinion. -- Ian Dalziel 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, the way I read it the opinion is Gerald Donaldson's - the sentence switches from the Williams team's view of Hill, to a brief authorial view of the car (which presuambly coincides with the Williams team view) to Schumacher's view of Hill. 4u1e 18:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It needs to be covered in the article, I don't think it belongs in the lead. It's not what most people will remember him for. -- Ian Dalziel 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's what I remember him for (and sublime driving, to be fair!) - most of the media stories when he retired covered this aspect, didn't they? It is a unique occurence, which seems notable enough for the lead. If not the 1997 incident in particular, then the controversy angle does need to be covered - according to WP:LEAD the lead needs to summarise the whole article, "describing its notable controversies, if there are any" and we have quite a lot of material on this aspect. Serte and I did already discuss this in the run up to GA, but that's not to say that a different consensus cannot prevail now. I'm personally happy for it to be a summary of all the controversy, not just the 1997 incident, if that makes any difference, the 97 one just seemed the best one to represent the topic. Any other views? 4u1e 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's important, it's a major infraction. I bet the Maradona article has the hand of god in the lead...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cocaine is there....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of dubious driving tactics in the lead to Ayrton Senna. -- Ian Dalziel 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, the lead to the Senna article reads, in its entirety: "Ayrton Senna da Silva (IPA: [ˈayɛrton ˈsɛnnɐ dɐ ˈsilvɐ]) (March 21, 1960–May 1, 1994), better known as Ayrton Senna, was a Brazilian Formula One triple world champion. He died whilst leading the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix at Imola." That falls a very long way short of meeting the Wikipedia guidelines, which as I said above, say the lead needs to summarise the whole article. The article as a whole is probably not a good example to follow here. At the end of the day, the question isn't really which other articles we should follow (although if we're looking for models they should be the two FA articles - Damon Hill and Alain Prost), but what the guidelines and our judgement say should be in the lead.4u1e 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I think there is currently too much detail in the lead, though. -- Ian Dalziel 12:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a bit snappy there! Too many topics or too much detail on those topics? The guidelines are quite clear on summarising the whole article (It suggests trying to include a sentence or phrase on all headings, although I think that's going a bit far!). I can try re-writing it with the same coverage but shorter, although I think it's fairly compact as it is. 4u1e 03:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

What do you all think of the sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, about the POV

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

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

Hmmm.... http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4808&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html That should work.Ernham 13:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of does not mean no one else seemed to be interestd in helping these causes. It just sounds a bit POV and informal for me. Any thoughts? --Cyktsui 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, actually. My prarphrase was too broad. I'm going to change the wording.Ernham 08:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes, it looks so much better now. Any thoughts on the first part of the sentence, which does not seem to be a complete sentence? --Cyktsui 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I've moved what I take to be comments by the same person to here to tidy things up. To answer your points:

• The comment in the lead about 1997 is referenced when it is dealt with in full later on in the article. It is usually considered a significant point in Schumacher's career, for example James Allen's book Michael Schumacher : Driven to extremes, takes it as its main theme. (Allen is not anti-Schumacher as far as I can see, and the book is not negative).
• Schumacher's total 7 championships and 5 in a row are mentioned in the lead. The fact that he holds nearly every record in F1 is also there - as you say, it is the same as for the collision with JV.
• The lead is supposed to summarise the whole article. We have a section called 'Controversy'. How can we not mention the only driver ever to be excluded from a season's championship results? 4u1e 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a strawman. The question isn't if '97 is significant enough to warrant inclusion. The question is: is it important enough to warrant inclusion in the intro? There are several sections in the body that do not get summarized in the intro, so that dog don't hunt.Ernham 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ernham has removed the mention of 1997 in the lead again, without further debate here. All those who contributed to the debate seem to have either agreed or come round to this point of view (hope I'm not misrepresenting you, Ian? Correct me if so). I also note that last night's anon editor thought it should be removed. The point of the exercise is consensus (a position agreed by all) so I guess we need to go through this again, with all those who wish to change the lead contributing to the discussion.

Note: Ernham has also removed the British GP from the controversies section. I'm inclined to agree on this one, as I think I suggested before somewhere, it was the team rather than him that was 'controversial' on that one. Views? 4u1e 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong in the intro, period. Though I must say I'm surprised the rest of this wiki has held up so well after I stopped contributing frequently. Surprising.Ernham 09:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sooner see a more general statement in the lead - that there has been repeated controversy about his driving ethics, for instance. Detailed incidents belong where there is space to give a balanced description. I certainly don't think all mention should be removed without consensus, though.

And I do think the British GP belongs in the controversies section. Although I think Michael was personally hard done by in a couple of ways, there certainly was - and still is - considerable controversy. -- Ian Dalziel 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, is the controversy? I'm all ears, really? This was a case of incompetent stewards. The controversy, if any, is directed towards the FIA, and issues regarding it should either be on that wiki or the race/racetrack wiki, but not here.Ernham 11:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." And Erhnam, you believe comparatively minor points such as him scouting for new drivers should stay but a very notable incident (whatever your POV regarding right or wrong) should be removed? I'm not following that logic. Mark83 13:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(posted after edit conflict)

I think we meet the requirements of WP:LEAD provided controversy about Schumacher's driving is mentioned. The bit of the guidance I'm thinking of here is: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This is followed by "The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:

• In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
• The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
• A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
• Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs."

Working on that basis the main points mentioned in the lead should be:

• Early life (which includes pre-F1 career) (10%)
• Summary of Racing career (50%)
• Controversies and criticism (20%)
• Family and off track life (10%)
• Formula One records (10%)

Percentages are my very rough estimates of how much coverage we have in the article - not accurate, could be argued up or down, but I think the relative picture is recognisable. The work of many different editors (with many different views!) has left us with an article that has a fairly significant chunk on the topic, although nothing like as long as it once was. To answer Ernham's point about dogs hunting, 'Controversies and criticism' is the second longest section in the article. That other, shorter sections are missing doesn't mean that this should be left out as well. Going by the wiki guidelines then, we've got to have something significant on controversies and criticism in the lead. (The other missing bits, 'Early life' and 'family and off track life', should also be worked in.

Regarding exactly what should be mentioned, Jerez 97 is the most controversial of several incidents, but I'm personally happy with having something more general on the topic. I see Ernham has just (14:13 or so) had a go at a re-write. What do others think? 4u1e 14:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relative weight of the section is quite short. I think it's a fair first sentence (although I find the language a bit +POV , is that just me?). How about another sentence saying what it is that people have found controversial about him? 4u1e 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it awhile ago, after having read that lead section myself. It's a general statement that tangents on '97, easily the biggest controversy regarding schuamcher. I'm not sure I care much about the "percent" of the various topics within the wiki that is correlated with the representation in the intro. Half of the "controversy" section does not even belong in the wiki at all, let alone warrant any kind of inclusion in the intro. Comparing Schuamcher to other Formula one drivers of his era clealry demonstartes and anti-schumacher bias in regards to this matter on wikipedia. Coulthard has nothing about controversy in his wiki whatsoever, despite constantly being mired in team issues/orders, controversial collisions(one of which could have easily killed him and schuamcher), and things like assaulting other drivers (grabbed Massa by the throat), disrespecting other drivers(flipped off schuamcher). Yet, for some reason, there is nothing there on his wiki. I really don't care, because I really don't think most of that belongs in those other wikis, nor do I believe most of the garbage bogusly labeled as "controversy" belongs here either. Ernham 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people are still arguing about it, it's hardly bogus to call it controversy, whatever your own opinion is. -- Ian Dalziel 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? People arguing over something has nothing to do with whether or not something is controversial. '97 incident was easily the most controversial incident, though no one argues about it. Team orders, for instance, do not belong in here, though in that case team orders themselves have been controversial-- in regards to their employment at all, not specific drivers, meaning the actual controversy revolves around team orders specifically, not the drivers that have employed them. The stewards screwing up at the British GP does not belong. Again, nothing to do with the driver, all to do with the governing body that allowed it to happen. It's only controversial because you and your ilk have an axe to grind that has jingoist engraved on the hilt. Ernham 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] -- Ian Dalziel 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point Ian (although Ernham's strictly correct in a narrow sense: everyone believes Schumacher to have been at fault for Jerez 97 so there's no controversy there :-) There is of course a wider controversy about his general approach to driving, of which Jerez was probably the biggest example).

Ernham - there's no call to call anyone names here - I can see no evidence of 'jingoism' in any comments Ian has made. (And axes don't have hilts ;-)) Cheers. 4u1e 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call anyone any names. Don't put words in my mouth and don't claim I did things I did not. Apparently you have never read Ian's hypocrisy and double-standards regarding Formula One drivers on Wikipedia. I have detailed one(maybe a few, I can't recall) incidents on my talk page. I highly doubt you have not read that, so I find your being so coy both quite sad and humorous at the same time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I am aware of your previous disagreements with Ian and as I say, I haven't seen any 'jingoism' from him. I understand jingoism to be a negative term meaning 'extreme chauvinism or nationalism', and I regard using that kind of language, with or without justification, as name calling. Hence my comment. If I've misunderstood the intent of your words, then you have my apologies. 4u1e 17:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

! Care to explain, Mark83, why you just reverted me adding my own signature, or do you just go in "revert mode" whenever you see one of my edits these days? Sounds like Damon Hill is my next wiki-stopErnham 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Specific percentages are certainly not important in themselves, that's why I eyeballed them rather than actually counting lines or something equally sad! It's just a tool to make sure I was keeping some perspective on relative weights of topics. On that basis the lead needs a little more meat. Allen's book has some interesting points on people's perceptions of Schumacher, I may find something relevant there. I've not really contributed to Coulthard's article, but I disagree (with Ernham, to clarify) about not including 'controversy'. Unless articles are just going to consist of a recitation of a driver's results I think we need to find ways of covering their impact on the sport. It probably says something about Schumacher's stature that his misdemeanours, perceived or otherwise, have had a very real impact on the running of the sport. Coulthard's have not (although it was McLaren who first got F1 into hot water over team orders, not Ferrari) which might be why they get less coverage. 4u1e 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still cooking up an alternative - but just to note that I do not agree with moving the mention of controversy right to the end of the lead - too much like hding it away. The lead should end as the article does, with his family life, probably the least important element of the article. Cheers. 4u1e 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aNON: Now is a more balanced intro , cheers!

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

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

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

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

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

There is no need to include vulgarity in your posts. Regarding FAs. Any article that passes a FAC will be totally compliant with Wikipedia policy. However FA status applies to the version as passed, articles change. If you have a problem with a Featured Article request a Featured Article Review which will address your concerns. Whining about it here is not doing anybody much good. Mark83 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I'll take it up here. I'm not overly concerned with that garbage article, and care little it's a sad joke, since it's so sad a rational reader will dismiss it outright and be none the worse for it. But here is concern; Damon Hill in the grand scheme of F-1 was a nobody while Schumacher debatably the most important figure ever, thus the reason for more concern. Enjoy your Damon Hill blog, though. But while you are here, explain your reversion of my signature, hmm?Ernham 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing the Michael Schumacher article, and I can't see from your comments under this heading what changes you want made to the article. Like I said it appears to me you are complaining about FA status of another article, hence the discussion is out of place here. Damon Hill's article is not "my" "blog" - if I remember rightly about the only substantial edit I've ever made was to agree with you about something. As for the signature issue, if you want to ask me why I made the edit I'll be more than happy to explain. However I don't care for being ordered to do things. Mark83 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You WERE asked above both when and where you made the odd reversion; you did not answer. Classic Mark83. Ernham 05:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernham, it would be nice if you can talk in a friendly way to the others. We are all hoping to make the articles in Wikipedia better. There is no need to take the others comment personally. Please be nice to and respect the others. Thanks --Cyktsui 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the Michael Schumacher article. If you suggesting this article is better than Damon Hill's and therefore should be a FA, by all means make it a FAC.Buc 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sentence,

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

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

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

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

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

Looks good. Thanks for chasing that down. 4u1e 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a lot of articles stating there is no sports athlete in the world with a fortune of 1 billion yet, and that Tiger Woods is the most probable one of becoming the first, and i checked the reference of the claim that Schumacher's a billionaire, it appears to be a page having a one-liner written according to a EuroBusiness magazine which can't be verified anywhere else online, so i find this less than credible and there is no other source stating his net worth is a billion, and his name isn't among the list of billionaires in Forbes, so i guess we can conclude that he's not a billionaire...yet?

--wil osb 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion about this, now archived (Talk:Michael Schumacher/Archive 7). Unfortunately no conclusion was ever reached. I agree, any reference I've ever seen is a throw away comment etc. I have yet to see a reference which says "has a fortune estimated at....." or similar. Mark83 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult thing to disprove. However, in his most recent biography, Christopher Hilton reports that 'he was immensely wealthy - people talked of $400 million' (he's talking about the back end of 2006). Still very vague, but well short of $1Billion and I think a book by a respected author trumps the second-hand reference from the website, so I support the removal of the sentence. 4u1e 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful on the word useage. I believe the factual info is that schuamcher has earned a billion dollars as an F-1 driver, not that he has a billion dollars in liquid assets. There were 2-3 cites substantiating the claims of being the first billionaire athlete a while back. That would be very "curious" if they had vanished, curious but not at all unsual for this wiki were certain cites have a habbit of "vanishing" and then people deleting the info claiming it wasn't cited..Ernham 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernham why is your default position hostility and/or suspicion?? Anyway, good point about him having earned that over his career. However, someone who earns an average of €20,000 a year and works for 50 years will have earned €1 million. That doesn't make them a millionaire. Mark83 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it doesn't. But in reality, I'm not even sure that is true. It could be, in fact, the has 1 billion dollars. Sometimes when determining someones net worth, just the persons name can be considered an asset, so it's possible the figures of 500-800 are correct and the rest are added from "his name". All i know for certain is that I've seen several different sources from media news outlets claim the same. keep in mind that Forbes said he was making something like 50 million a year while the official F! cite said his earnings for the year were over 100 million. Ernham 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so we're all agreed: little hard evidence. However I don't have a problem leaving it in for the moment. Mark83 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only "hard evidence" could be supplied if you were his broker and/or had power of attorney. It should be left as first billionaire athlete, however, since I know at least Eurobusiness(business magazine) and UKsport(web news site) both said as much.Ernham 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, many famous people have profiles which say "personal fortune of...." etc. That's hard evidence. btw what happened the Eurobusiness ref?? Mark83 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sure where it went, but just found this one [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

About his annual salary. I'm not sure what to say. Three sources, all seeming trustworthy, cite different figures 63 million, 80 million, and "upwards of 100 million". The last one is probably the best, since it comes straight from the official formula one website, which is why i used the terminology of "upwards". it's in the schuamcher profile on there.Ernham 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding annual salary, have we got a $ vs £ problem? That could explain why the figures vary so much. Regarding being the first billionaire, should we be giving a flat statement that he is the first, given that one reference (see here, which explictly mentions Schumacher as well) says that Tiger Woods will be the first, and another says that Schumacher's fortune (while very impressive) was not that big. I appreciate Ernham's point that 'hard' cash value is not the only measure, but we don't have anything concrete which supports the quite reasonable supposition that the 'missing' value comes from other, less tangible, assets. I suggest we say that "Schumacher has been called the world's first billionaire athlete" and footnote the reason why it is ambiguous. Better to spell out the ambiguity if it cannot be resolved, than to give an exaggerated view of how certain we are. I'll edit to that effect - revert and discuss here if you disagree. Cheers. 4u1e 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schumacher doesn't appear in the 2006 Forbes list of Billionaires either, which is another contra-indication. 4u1e 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting really sick of repeating myself. CHECK and see how much forbes claims Schumacher makes a year and then compare it to what formula one suggests.Ernham 17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused - are you referring to annual income or 'billionaire' status? 4u1e 17:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I guess from your last edit that you mean 'billionaire' status. We cannot use his annual income to support calling him the first billionaire. There are two reasons for this, the first is that it would be Original Research. The second is that the logic is faulty, as Mark pointed out above, total earnings mean nothing if you don't know total expenditure. 'Billionaire' is a term referring to someone who has total worth of 1 Billion or more, not someone who has earned that amount over their lifetime. Earnings are indicative, but nothing more. Yes, it looks like he could have earned enough to have a net worth of 1 Billion.

But those calculations are irrelevant, because we have referenced statements that he is a Billionaire. I have no problem with that. The point I am trying to make is that we have other, equally valid, references which explicitly deny his Billionaire status. So what do we do? As I said above, the logical way forward seems to be to say that he has been called the first Billionaire athelete, and to note that there are different views on this.

I would be grateful if you could explain why you disagree with this view. Thanks. 4u1e 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree because you are either a liar or you cannot read your own cite above, the one which you claim says schumacher is NOT a billionaire. Here is all it says about Schumacher " ...and the only sports star who might rival Woods in wealth is Formula One race car driver Michael Schumacher of Germany, who earns about $60 million a year." Do you know what the word "might" means? They also say 60 million salaray, yet the official f1 site says around 100 million??? Ernham 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pity - I thought we were getting on quite nicely there. Please try not to be rude to other editors when their views differ from yours. I haven't even reverted your last change and I see no reason for the aggression, which makes me feel rather uncomfortable. I hope that is not your intention. I'll continue commenting at the bottom of this thread, to try and keep the logic of the debate clear. 4u1e 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The annual income. The difference between official formula one site and forbes site was 100% last time I looked on their list of powerful people or whatver. They use third parties sources to determine "billionaire" status, which only works well if they own some corperation that's easily attributed a price tag. Not easy with schuamcher because the only thing that's "visible" and anyone can see is his money for driving alone(not endorsments/investments). Some may also be valueing "the schumacher name" and some might be counting current endorsement contracts that are "his" but not all paid to him yet.Ernham 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm confused again. The only change to the annual income since your last version was to make it 'up to $100M' not 'over $100M', wasn't it? And you haven't changed that one back again. You have changed 'has been called a billionaire' back to 'is a billionaire' though, which is why I thought that was your concern. 4u1e 17:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are a concern. The official F-1 cite takes priority here over anything else, for obvious reasons. "at least "As much as 100$ million" will techinically be the same as the other cites, since it not exactly specificErnham 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can't totally discount reports that contradict the official F-1 site, even though you might prefer to believe what it says. I think it should then be treated as an "other significant opinion" rather than totally eliminated. At least, that's what the NPOV guidelines for WP say.--Ramdrake 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. Certain cites are not credible. These are not exact things he has made privy to the entire world. Each given "isssue" is its own. In some cases you would be right, but not in this case. I don't think some golf blog is a significant opinion, for instance.Ernham 17:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indent for clarity) Regarding Blogs, absolutely right. Forbes.com, which does not include Schumacher on its list, seems a reasonable source though, although its methodology may have differ from that used by Eurobusiness magazine. 4u1e 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment about the Tiger Woods comparison above, Ernham, the bit I was thinking of was 'perhaps the first billionaire to accumulate his wealth as an athlete'. Meaning that another athlete had not done it at that time. The other source is Christopher Hilton's book, which gives 'only' (Ha, I should be so lucky! :D) $400M. So my point remains, if a range of reliable (and up to date, all are 2006 figures) say that Schumacher is not a billionaire, should we not qualify our blanket statement that he is? 4u1e 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't accept that the golfdigest.com site is a blog. It seems to be the online version of a print magazine and I would take it as a reasonable source. 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Forbes.com is a trustworthy source if it says someone is a billionaire, but not if they do not. The problem is demonstrated by your own cite above: "In little more than nine seasons as a professional, Woods has earned $66 million in prize money worldwide, some of it as unofficial earnings. Research by Golf Digest revealed that over that same period Woods has earned another $481.8 million in endorsements and appearance fees." Obviously someone was made privy to and/or researched the right things to find out he is a billionaire or an magazine wouldn't be claiming that they did as well as news sources. That's pretty major suttf, and if he has a billion but only paid tax on 500 million, which is what it would look like if he had not made the billion. No news source is going to risk such libel.Ernham 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - can you clarify the last part of that paragraph, in 'Obviously someone was made privy to and/or research the right things to find out he is a billionaire...', who is 'he'? Woods or Schumacher? (I may be offline for a while now, but will come back to the debate). 4u1e 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point that the figures won't be accurate. There's no way any of these sources have insight into detailed accounts, so I guess all of these figures are estimates, or contain signficant estimated figures. The thrust of your argument seems to be that you don't feel any of the sources I give for Schumacher's worth being less than $1Billion are reliable? Do I understand correctly? 4u1e 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, only his money manager/broker knows exactly how much he has made. He's made around 500 million just from salary/winnings, but that is not counting his endorsements. That's were the 500 million-ish figure is coming from and why it's wrong. It basically comes down to Schuamcher's willingness to let people look at his finacial records, and it seems to be the case that he has allowed at least some people to examine them. This reminds me of the "donates tens of millions". Had he not released that information we would never have any idea. If wewere to "estimate it" from other sources, it would not be any where near the real amount of 50 million in the last 4 years alone. Ernham 06:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this is analogous to the amount donated to charity. In that case we had refs for specific amounts he had donated to specific causes, which didn't add up to 10s of Millions, hence my comment that it should be Millions although 10s of Millions was clearly plausible. For donations it is reasonable to 'add up' various sources, because we have figures for the actual amounts donated. You then found a ref for 10s of Millions, which the other refs do not contradict, so we changed it to reflect the new information.

Regarding being a Billionaire, we have some refs that say he is, and some that say he is not. None of them explain in detail what their methodology was. We don't know, for example, that the figure of $400 Million given by Hilton is based only on actual salary, there's no particular reason why it should be. Your reasoning on why this might be makes perfect sense, but doesn't appear in any of the references and we can't dismiss the lower figures on that basis. Adding up his income over the years ourselves is only a secondary indicator, since we don't know what his expenses are, how much he gave to others in total (charity, for example) how his investments performed etc. I still don't understand why, given that some reliable sources say that he is not a Billionaire, you feel we shouldn't qualify the statement that he is with a footnote that says that some other sources say differently. 4u1e 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have yet to produce a credible source that specifically says he is not a billionaire. The last one you claimed did say this was laughable unresearched "schumacher MIGHT rvial Woods". Totally ridiculous. this should not have even been anything debated whatsoever. The cites are numerous he is a billionaire and out there. This is pure nonense.Ernham 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so as I asked above, the problem is the quality of the sources? These are the sources that have been given to date that say Schumacher is not a Billionaire:

• Golfdigest.com - Online version of reputable print magazine Golf Digest. Says that Tiger Woods will 'perhaps [be] the first billionaire to accumulate his wealth as an athlete', (article dated February 2006). If Woods may in the future be the first, Schumacher can't be one already, if they are correct, of course. Not unresearched as you suggest - they have interviewed IMG and used the Forbes figures, for example.
• Schumacher does not appear in the 2006 Forbes list of Billionaires dated September 2006. Your reasoning that it is not reliable if someone doesn't appear on it may be right, but I can see nothing in the article to support your suggestions about what might have been left out.
• Christopher Hilton's biography of Schumacher reports that at the end of 2006 'he was immensely wealthy - people talked of $400 million'. You haven't addressed this one yet.
• Here's another one dated September 2006, from the earlier discussion Mark referred to at the top of this thread. [3]. This gives $800 Million.

Anticipating what I belive will be your general response, you may be right that these figures exclude elements of his worth, but we have no evidence to support that being the case as none of the sources, for or against, go into much detail about how the worth was calculated.

I do not wish to remove the references to Schumacher being a Billionaire in the article, only to footnote them to say that some sources say differently. It makes the article more robust in the face of, for example, a potential Tiger Woods fan coming along in a couple of years time and saying 'Woods was the first Billionaire'. 4u1e 08:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those that's even moderately eyebrow raising is the Forbes list. However, given that forbes listed schuamcher annual salary at half of what it really is (claimed by official formula one site), it's quite clear that their methodology isn't that great. It does not seem to be setup to gauge the wealth of superstar athletes, but oil/business tycoons with easily verified net worth. The rest of your cites there do not claim what you say they do. Again, it seems you are trying to misrepresent cites:[4] this does not say "800 million". It says OVER 800 million. Is 1 billion over 800 million? Things might have changed, but last time I checked it was in fact higher than 800 million. The golfdigestis laced with qualifiers like "probably" and "might", by no means establishing anything other than they have no idea what the hell they are sure of. the supposed cites:" Woods is on the verge of becoming golf's first $1 billion player, and PERHAPS the first billionaire to accumulate his wealth as an athlete". And later golfdigest says the only athlete that "MIGHT rival woods". Complete trash that does nothing to substantiate your claims. There is nothing to address regarding the biography. "people talked of" would get you laughed at in a debate or legal setting, a thing called "heresay". Nothing solid to go on there. There is no need for anyone to "talk of it", however, because 400-500 million is a figure of public record. No research required, just salary + winnings. Sounds like a pretty shoddy "biography". Has it been authorized by Schumacher as "official"? In short, the Forbes list is the only one of interest, but I've never seen it claimed anywhere the list is exhaustive and schuamcher is not compelled to share with them his finicial status. Ernham 13:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's not even an official biography, not that "people talked of" would substantiate even if it were. I'm getting really tired of you claiming cites say something and then when i go look they do not at all say what you claim, in some cases almost entirely the opposite.Ernham 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the BusinessF1 anlysis, the same one that revealed the last 4 years of his donations to various causes, he made 400$ million just in winnings/salary from being a driver. He also has a merchandizing business that nets about 70 million annually, operating ~ten years now. It gives no listing for how much money he has made through books, lending is image/name for things like video games, any kind of advertising contracts and other endorsements and mentions this omission outright. Obviously they can't come up with a concrete figure without these other things and state blankly he has over 800 million. 300 + 70 x 10 = 1.1 billion, and that's without counting all those other things. Take a look at how much tiger has made and note that about 80% of his income is from endorsements. The reports of 400-500 million are obviously in relation to purely his salary/winnings Ernham 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is entirely plausible, even likely, that he is a Billionaire, he's certainly earned enough. That's why I think we should leave in the statement that he is. As I've said before, we can't assume Billionaire status just because his earnings are sufficient that he 'must have done'. We can't see the other side of the coin (coin, money - geddit? :D), which is how much he's spent or given away. To call Schumacher a Billionaire we need a reference that actually says that (and which is plausibly based on actual research). We have that, but we also have other sources which give a different view, which I think requires a degree of caveating to represent that view.

I've got more detailed responses to your comments on those sources, which will need to wait until this evening or possibly tomorrow. In the meantime, thank you for continuing to debate this point. I realise that it can be frustrating, but this is how we get a robust article which can stand up to questions like the one asked by Wil osb at the top of this section. I would like us to be in a situation where the next time someone says 'Hang on a minute, my magazine says that Johnny Comelately is the first billionaire athlete.' they can follow the footnote and understand why this one says what it says. Cheers. 4u1e 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the argument is, it's going to be a moot. Even if he has two dollars to his name, he has been reported to be the first billionaire athlete. That means that at some point he was the first athlete to have a billion dollars in net assets. It doesn't mean he has a billion dollars today, get it? Just another fundamental flaw in all this.Ernham 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernham that's a good point about once being a billionaire and his later status being moot. However "get it" suggests you are annoyed by having to discuss the issue. Unfortunately that's the way disagreements and queries are solved. Given that (as far as I can see) everybody has been perfectly polite, there really isn't any need for such an insult. Cheers. Mark83 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. Real Life^TM intervened. Thanks for your patience. Regarding your specific points, Ernham:

• $800M claim. Yes, $1Bn is greater than $800M, so if you look at it as an equation the two don't contradict each other. However, as a piece of prose, how likely is it that the author of the piece used the words 'worth upwards of $800M' to mean that Schumacher was worth a net billion?
• Golfdigest.com. On reflection, I agree, the use of 'perhaps' in the key phrase weakens that claim enough that we shouldn't use it in the article. It remains worth us noting here only because it's one of many recent stories claiming that either Tiger Woods or LeBron James will be the first billionaire athlete, which makes it likely that others will question Schumacher's primacy.
• There's no particular reason to distrust Hilton in himself, or to characterise his work as shoddy - in fact I think you've used another book of his to support discussions about whether Schumacher is the greatest driver (The only book I'm aware of which takes 100 pages to statistically prove that MS is the greatest is Hilton's Michael Schumacher : The greatest of them all). The lack of an 'official' label does not make a source unreliable in itself. I believe Michael Schumacher : Driving Force by Sabine Kehm is the only 'official' book. It has some interesting pictures and some very good material on Schumacher's personality and private life, but nothing on his financial status unfortunately. I would certainly rate a different figure which appeared to come from MS himself higher than Hilton's report of what people believe, but it's not without some weight.
• Regarding Forbes, the logic for dismissing it is faulty. Your initial reason for excluding Forbes as a source was that they had his salary as 'half of what it really is', and that their methodology was therefore wrong. The offical F1 site says that MS 'reportedly earned as much as US$100 million a year', i.e. that in at least one year of his career he earned $100M. The Forbes 2004 list of top earning athletes says that he earned $80M in 2004, I'm not sure where your $50M figure came from, could you clarify? Even if Forbes does give $50M as one year's salary, there is is no contradiction anyway, as $100M is only the peak income, not a regular income for each year. There is also no reason to believe the income figure given by the F1 site is more accurate. It comes in a short bio of MS, not in a comparison of the earnings of different individuals, and gives no indication of how it was calculated. As it says 'reportedly' one might expect it to have be researched by motorsports author Gerald Donaldson with about the same degree of accuracy as Hilton did for his 'people talked of' $400M figure.

• (Later edit: Also, is there any explicit connection between $100M annual income and the billionaire tag? The tyee.ca reference actually mentions the same $80M figure from Forbes, I don't think we know what annual income Eurobusiness magazine used, do we?)4u1e 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You also wonder whether the Forbes list is exhaustive, or whether MS is compelled to share his income with Forbes. I can only answer that he appears in their annual list of top athletic incomes, so they are aware of him and have information on him so there's no reason to think that he would not appear on the billionaire's list if he met their criteria.
• Finally, in terms of sources, we should note that the sources for Schumacher being a billionaire have their own problems. Although there are multiple references on the web, most of them are throwaway lines like 'billionaire racing car driver Michael Schumacher'. The important one is the one we are using as ref 5 from Tyee.ca, which refers to an article in Eurobusiness magazine in 2005 which identified Schumacher as the first billionaire athlete. Unfortunately, none of us know what the original article actually said, or what methodology was used for coming up with the figure. As I have said before, I agree that it is plausible, so I have no objection to leaving this as the statement in the article.
• Your new point about timing is a good one, as Mark says. I had gotten too focussed on billionaire status, not first billionaire status. I think the reference to Schumacher's status as the first sporting billionaire should remain in the article, referenced as currently, with the wording in the main article reading 'In 2005 Eurobusiness magazine identified Michael Schumacher as the first sporting billionaire'. The footnote should be caveated to note that Schumacher does not appear in the 2006 or 2005 Forbes billionaires lists and that some sources have given his net worth in 2006 as being less than $1 Billion. This then provides the best reference we can for MS being the first sporting billionaire, but also clarifies that this may not now be the case, hopefully forestalling unwanted changes from new editors. What do you think? 4u1e 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've edited along those lines, thought it might be clearer to do it and discuss any problems, rather than try and describe what I meant. Ernham, could you give me the reference for the $400M total career income from BusinessF1 magazine you mentioned above (part of your calculation of $1.1M total income)? I can't see it in the ref you gave for the $50M over four years above (ref 78 from the article) which is the one I thought you meant. Thanks. 4u1e 08:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

What's really needed is some kind of syntax highlighting for the editor. That way, it'd become obvious what parts are actual article text, and where the citations etc. are. Alexj2002 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. That would help, but even then, I prefer having separate notes and references, with the notes only giving ref title and page number, and the references listed in full at the bottom of the page. Reason being, using the full template cites in the text, you have to repeat the whole thing for every different page you cite. 4u1e 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at wikEd for now, if you use Firefox. It offers really clear syntax highlighting in-browser, amongst a host of other features. CloudNine 11:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool- a shiny new toy! I like it - but I still think using this reference format in text is a mistake. See History of Saffron for a neater approach. 4u1e 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I spent a lot of time converting this page to this ref format because I mistakenly believed it was necessary for GA and FA status. Painful as it is to admit, the History of Saffron approach looks a whole lot better. Mark83 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All versions are acceptable for FA, as far as I can see - I just find this one difficult to work with, particularly when multiple refs from a single source are required. We could change it in future, but there's no rush. On a related note, would anyone be sympathetic to removing all of the references in the lead? I know some people believe that facts given there should be referenced, but I don't think there's any wiki guideline that actually says that. The facts do need to be referenced, of course, but as the lead is summarising the rest of the article, all facts should appear in the main body and can be referenced there. At the moment, almost every sentence in the lead has a reference after it, which seems excessive. I'm not dogmatic about this, I just think it looks neater to leave them out. If someone doubts a fact in the lead, their first step in verifying it should surely be to check the fuller information in the body of the article. 4u1e 16:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some problems with the piece about Monaco 2006.

Although Schumacher took the pole position...

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

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

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

But he was officially the pole sitter for a few hours I think, then demoted after the steward's announcement. As for the second point, I agree. Why not just go ahead and change it though? Mark83 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will just remove the entire claim of alonso's supposed claim to the pole(speculation of a future unprovable event = not wiki material". There is no way to tell what Alonso could/would have done. Did he ever post faster times in sections of his qualifying runs that were better than schumacher's yet still not beat his time at the completion of the lap? Ya, that only happens, what 75% of the time? Heh.Ernham 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. ITV said "Alonso was on course to eclipse Schumacher’s time after a brilliant middle sector of the lap, but the momentary hesitation caused by the yellow flags saw him cross the line 0.064s adrift."[5] they would not be so emphatic if there was any doubt about it. Mark83 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Hamilton said "It was no coincidence that his main rival, Fernando Alonso, was halfway through his last lap and the split times showed the Renault driver to be 0.3 seconds faster."[6] RTE Sport: "World champion Alonso was on a flying lap and set to snatch pole, but with yellow flags waving he was forced to ease off around the final bend, leaving him 0.064 seconds behind Schumacher." [7] Mark83 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to repeat myself? We don't speculate on future events at wikipedia, hmmm? If I recall right, Weber also turned in a 1st section that was much, much faster than schumacher's 1st section(it was almost the exact same time alonso was running), yet Weber did not beat his time at the end of the lap. Ahh, lookie what I found, a little something to refute all this nonsense being spewed. Care to explain all the fast early sections(many of which were higher than schuamcher and many of which FASTER than alonso) that did not beat schuamcher's time? To make matters even worse(for you) schumacher had posted his fastest split time on that very lap he stalled his car, meaning he was also poised to raise the time. If you speculate in the future there is equal speculation that schumacher would have increased his lead even further. http://www.avenuevine.com/movabletype/archives/MonacoGPo6SG-w.gifErnham 23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical agressive/dismissive tone I see! Thank you so very much for that. Sorry to burst your bubble but that just backs up my references. It shows Alonso was quicker in sector 1 and sector 2. He was slightly slower in sector 3 because of the yellow flags. Please if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in a court case, never defend yourself, get a lawyer. Mark83 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you compeltely missed the point(s), which doesn't surprise me because they were completely based on logic and facts.23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What point was that exactly. Try explaining your points rather than hurling abuse please. Mark83 23:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain all the fast early sections(many of which were higher than schuamcher and many of which FASTER than alonso) that did not beat schuamcher's time? To make matters even worse(for you) schumacher had posted his fastest split time on that very lap he stalled his car, meaning he was also poised to raise the time. If you speculate in the future there is equal speculation that schumacher would have increased his lead even further. http://www.avenuevine.com/movabletype/archives/MonacoGPo6SG-w.gif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As usual you are selectively reading citations. I have provided authoritative sources which state that Alonso would indeed have been faster than Schumacher. Period (as our American friends say). Mark83 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you have provided nothing at all that substantiates that, at least not outside of your wild imagination. Ernham 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITV, Maurice Hamilton, RTE. I'm sorry, but a quick glance at the reputations of those organisations and that man doesn't stack up well with your tainted record on this project. Mark83 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing sourced material because you don't like it. It's important edition to the "debut" section as we are talking about the first impressions schumacher gave to the F1, one of the persons,Eddie Jordan, has been a very important figure in F1 and has had first hand experience with numeroues drivers and he is also a neutral source. This repeated deleteting of sourced material could be considered "simple vandalism".Ernham 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, what Eddie Jordan said is not only rubbish, but it's based on his own subjective opinions on the very first day Schumacher worked with him. Eddie Jordan a neutral source? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. It's so irrelevant to compare Schumacher with Senna and Hill in this utterly tenuous fashion, it's unbelievable. And unencyclopedic. Just because a quote is sourced, it doesn't mean its inclusion is necessary or sensible. Your POV-pushing is astonishing. Have you nothing else to do? Bretonbanquet 17:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Jordan's opinion on Schumacher is "rubbish"? Why? Because you disagree with him? And who the hell are you? A previous formula one boss that worked firsthand with schumacher and has been in F-1 for decades and worked firsthand with numerous F-1 drivers as well?Ernham 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Whatever you think of him his comments are given a lot of attention. Bretonbanquet you seem to be letting your opinion of Jordan override all else. Mark83 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark83, I'll thank you not to presume I have an "opinion" of Eddie Jordan, because I don't, other than that I don't believe he is an objective person to cite in this case. I'll also add that Jordan did not work with Senna in F1. And Ernham, you would think I'd say his opinion is rubbish simply because I don't agree with it, because that's how you think. Understand that some people can have opinions not based on personal bias. My opinion is simply that, regardless of who you are and how experienced you are, to say that any young driver is "miles better" than a triple World Champion on the first day you've seen him drive, is not only ridiculous, but embarrassing. How can any rational person think that's a reasoned comment to make? Bretonbanquet 18:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many formula one drivers have you personally worked with, anyway, to formulate that opinion? Ernham 18:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, none of us are permitted to have any individual opinions on the sport at all. You are showing your obvious limits. Bretonbanquet 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the point at hand, I suppose the point that raises eyebrows is the opinion that Schumacher is miles ahead of Senna in terms of talent. Did EJ mean at that stage in their careers? (I haven't had the chance to listen to the whole article yet) 4u1e 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. And that's not clear here. Even if one accepts that Schumacher was at some point better than Senna (not a discussion I need to have), it is foolish to suggest that he was ever "miles better" at any stage. It's not properly quantitive, and smacks of an offhand, ill-conceived comment. Bretonbanquet 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more foolish to assume in rhetorical context that one could offer a "properly quantitive" assessment of drivers. What are you looking for, a percent derived from stats and a formal mathematical proof? Ernham 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. But you've just proved my point. What on earth is any statement in a "rhetorical context" doing in a supposedly encyclopedic article? Bretonbanquet 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they invented quotation marks. Any direct quote from a person is rhetorical context. You present the quote(if its important to the article) and you present the credentials of the person making the quote(if needed), and then you let the reader decide to what degree he meant X or Y and to what degree his opinion is credible. By the way, you would be hard pressed to find a more valid opinion on a comparisson between those drivers from a person that has no current team-based tie to F-1 anymore. It's about as neutral as you can get. Schumacher left Jordan high and dry after he gave Schumacher his big chance in F-1; if anything Jordan would have reason to have a negatively-biased opinion about Schumacher. It's about as "gold standard" as one can get when it comes to controversial things like "who is the greatest/best/etc."Ernham 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say I agree with much of that. I don't believe any comparison between Schumacher and Senna is particularly valid, except on a bare statistical basis, and even then it's flawed. I certainly don't believe such a comparison is necessary, only those with an axe to grind would think it was, most of us don't need to decide who was the greatest / best and so on. I also don't believe such a comparison, even if a neutrally-grounded one could be decided upon, is relevant to this article. Bretonbanquet 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always just consider it a "de-weaseling", too, since it gives direct evidence to the claim that "schumacher impressed in silverstone". Being considered better than Senna and Hill just seeing a drivers performance one day is pretty "impressive", is it not. Unbelievable, according you, in fact. Ernham 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unbelievable. In the true sense of the word. Especially considering that Jordan didn't work with Senna in F1, nor Hill till he was past his best, hence my doubt over the veracity of his statement. Bretonbanquet 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those (like me) who were dreading the prospect of trawling through an hour of recording to find the relevant bit may be interested to know that it comes between about 8m30 and 9m15. 4u1e 12:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript of the relevant bit, if that helps anyone's thinking process: “Once he drove the car, there was absolutely no doubt, and I feel I am much more qualified than our opponents here, because I, unlike some of them, I’ve had Damon Hill drive for Jordan and win for Jordan, I’ve had Senna drive for Jordan, and as a combined team with Dickie Bennetts in Macau, won with Senna too, there’s absolutely no doubt, Michael Schumacher was miles ahead of the two of them.”

Note: EJ is here referring to a one-off joint effort at the 1983 Macau Grand Prix run by Eddie Jordan Racing with Bennett's West Surrey Racing F3 team, for whom Ayrton Senna raced in British F3 that year. Damon Hill drove for Jordan for the first time in 1998 and 1999 in F1. 4u1e 13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a bit more time thinking about it, I do agree that this is a relevant quote to put in. I've re-written that bit though, to more closely paraphrase the quote I've given above (another way of doing this would be to use a larger chunk of the quote, I suppose). In particular to make it clearer when Eddie said it and when he worked with the two drivers being compared. 4u1e 13:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree on that. Firstly, it's danegrous to compare MS with other F1 drivers like that. Everyone has different opinion on the drivers' abilities and I won't be surprised to find the quote from another person to say other drivers are better than MS. It could be a potential for other wikipedians to include all these sources. Secondly, this is only Jordan's own opinion and it does not seem to be a general view for most people. There is no doubt that MS is one of the greatest driver ever in F1, but I cannot claim that he is "miles ahead" of others. --Cyktsui 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I think the article has enough material to show how important or great Schumacher was, so there's no need for including every possible single citation by every single person in the Formula 1 about him. Leaving that there might make readers find citations for people who disagree with that, as it is not a consensual view. If Schumacher really is the best (and I believe he is), the rest of the article has enough material to show it off.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 15:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view, and the lack of given sources also implies a verifiability issue. Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."

I would say we have verily squashed any possible weasel word issues when it comes to the weasel statement Schumacher "impressed the paddock". Whether or not you can find a person with a different view is besides the point. Jordan is hardly some random F-1 persona and his views highly relevant in that portion of the wiki.Ernham 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Serte on the fact that there is enough material to show how great MS was, thus we don't need every single sources, which is coming back to my point that if we include this particular one, then other wikipedians may include every other sources they can find. Surely Eddie Irvine made a lot of negative comment about MS, how come I don't see any of them on the article? I guess the main thing I don't like is compare MS with other great drivers based on one race with the statement that he was "miles ahead". FYI, MS is my favourite F1 driver --Cyktsui 11:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen this wiki for long, apparently. Note the portion that was just removed and I reverted: "schumacher =devoted family man and accomplished footballer". Everyone in F-1 knows that is true. Schumacher was somewhat of a "bore" for a lot of other F-1 drivers because he was more family oriented instead of party oriented. Irvine said something like "For someone so wealthy, he has pretty simple tastes. He likes his animals, his cars, and his family. And not much else." His football coach has stated that he hopes schumacher can save his team from relegation now that he is retired and has more time to play. Sounds like the mark of pretty good footballer,eh? Even when you cite/source things, this wiki has a strange "source blackhole" that eats those cites/sources "vanishing" when they are favorable to schumacher. Then they remove the material and say it wasn't sourced. So citing provides somewhat of a pad to the material in order to combat the "blackhole effect" here. And by having it sourced along with the material, you can often invoke vandalism status to the reversions. Sometimes it seems to be the only why to save wiki's from POV pushing bigots. Ernham 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernham please spend your time discussing content rather than other editors. If you have a specific complaint take it through the proper channels. Hurling abuse here is totally unconstructive and tells people more about you than anyone else. Mark83 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've told you the reason why this wiki and some others needs to routinely cite anything and everything, from the world is round to the sun is the center of the solar system, apparently. If you don't like the reason, too bad. I don't like it either. But it's the nature of this "game", apparently. Ernham 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know things need to be cited. My comments clearly relate to your personal attacks such as "it seems to be the only why to save wiki's from POV pushing bigots" etc. Mark83 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't refer to anyone in person, so I'm not sure how that's a "personal attack". You seem to have a habit of saying everything you don't like is a "personal attack". Just more game-playing.Ernham 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernham! You disappoint me! Asking for a citation! After all, you're the master of never letting a good fact getting in the way. That pesky Herero matter you know, the Germans were blameless and all that. Now you're hiding behind facts here? Stamina, that's all it takes. Just revert the anti-Schumie Anglo-Saxon bigots I say! Revert revert and revert again until they go away! Greenman 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With many of the editors of this article that discuss it here saying that Schumacher is their favourite driver, it's unbelievable you still think there's a conspiracy against him that makes us disagree with you. If you can't accept that other people may have their opinions without feeling it is a personal attack, if you can't let your edits be mercilessly edited by others, this is not the place for you.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boy, it's so wonderful to have a admin vandalizing wikis and having no idea how to look into the history of a wiki. Unbelievable. The rigors for admin selection here must be rather weak.Ernham 03:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]