Talk:Michael Schumacher

Missing image Cscr-former.png Former featured article candidate

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates (where the individual nomination does not exist) please check the archive. Once the objections have been met you may resubmit the article for featured article status.

Template:WikiProject Formula One

According to my company's intranet, on 11 December 2003, Schumacher was beaten by and Italian Air Force Eurofighter. Schumacher, in his F2003-GA, beat the plane on the first 600m sprint, but was defeated on the longer 900m and 1200m sprints. The conditions were wet and the Typhoon had to complete the runs on the ground (on a parallel runway). -- Darac 13:52, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Yahoo news (http://sg.sports.yahoo.com/031211/1/3glbx.html). BTW, the pilot of the Eurofighter was the former european astronaut Maurizio Cheli. andy 14:00, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Grand Prix motor racing is an article about a pre-F1 thing, therefore this link isn't adequate. Andres 22:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. Grand Prix motor racing is about Grand Prix motor racing. Today's F1 races are GP races, same as GP races in the 30s and 40s. Note what it says on the Grand Prix motor racing page (edited for brevity):--

• "for 1950 they would be linking several national Grands Prix to create Formula One with a World Championship for drivers. ...... Follow the Formula One link for more (GP) history after 1950". Moriori 23:27, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK, Grand Prix racing went on. But the article Grand Prix motor racing relates only the history until 1950 when Schumacher wasn't there. Why refer to that article from Schumacher's achievements? Besides, that article suggests another usage of the expression:

Some of the great drivers of the Grand Prix motor racing era ...

This implies that era is gone. Andres 23:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then rewrite it by inserting "early" between "the" and "Grand Prix". The GP still exists. Have a look at Monaco Grand Prix. Do you think pre 1950 results should be removed because they were not F1? Will you remove them? Moriori 00:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

If you are sure that usage is wrong then please add the word "early". I don't think pre 1950 results should be removed.

My point is that as to the nature of Schumacher's achievements cited where the link is, the reader doesn't learn anything from the Grand Prix motor racing page as it is exclusively about the pre 1950 era, whereas the article Formula One is about the modern Grand

Prix racing. What is important for the reader is to learn how Grands Prix are related to Formula One, and if she doesn't learn this from the Formula One article then perhaps there should be another article explaining the concept of a Grand Prix competition. Currently, there is none. Andres 00:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==Deutsch Vermogensberatung==(german engineering) Is there a reason why the name of the company sponsoring schumi's hat is not mentioned? It is something like Deutsch Vermogensberatung, I am not sure of spelling though... AlbinoMonkey

The reason may well be because no-one else could be sure of how to spell it! Having looked it up, I find that it's "Deutsche Vermögensberatung". There's no Wikipedia page about the company as of this moment, but I don't see that that's a reason not to mention the company name, so I've put it in. Loganberry 00:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Controversy

In the controversy section, I think there should definitely be mention of the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix (where Rubens Barrichello slowed down to let him win on the last lap - which caused the FIA to make rules against "team orders"), and maybe a little reference to the 2002 United States Grand Prix (where Schumi "repaid" the Austrian win...yeah, right). But due to this statement (which I did not want to remove as it is somewhat true), I was not sure exactly how to put the information in:

In more recent years, however, his success with Ferrari, moderation of his on-track tactics, and a more relaxed public persona have rehabilitated Schumacher's image for most fans

Suggestions? --AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page ownership

I would like a debate about the ownership of the page: "open to all to edit" or "owned by Violetriga to have final say"?

I support the first description of the page and that's how it should be. The contribution of: "It is clear to spectators that Schumacher is not able to defend his position in a race. His ability to attack, overtake and lead from the front is well known, but when under pressure he makes basic mistakes.

His first two world championships (with Benetton) were accompanied by much speculation in the F1 paddock regarding the legality of the cars. It is a little publicised fact that after their second championship together, the FIA agreed to halt any deep scrutiny of the cars so long as Benetton sacked two technical employees with immediate effect. Benetton complied, and never won another championship. "

I support. It adds new information that you wouldn't get in an undynamic non-online encyclopeadia, and is useful. I request support for a RfC page on Violetriga to remove her as an admin, to stop her "unconsulting, auto-right-to override others" that she practices.Kreen

The above contribution should be NPOV-ed before it can be included. Karl Stas 17:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh, you haven't even discussed this yet. Invite Violetriga to comment on this page rather than simply complaining about her, and you might accomplish something. However, your proposed text is clearly not neutral because it presents the text as indisputable fact, though it is clearly your opinion. If an outside source such as an F1 pundit has said something to that effect, quote him and link to the source. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 18:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That first paragraph is very POV... I've seen him defend his position on several occasions whilst under pressure. The first sentence in the second paragraph is OK, seeing as how it specifies they were just "speculations"... the rest of that paragraph is a bit dubious - does anyone have a source on this?? BTW, I'm not a Schumi supporter, and never have been. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll check back over the article, (don't have time today), but it's more a case of Violetriga's standard "Violetriga m (Reverted edits by X to last version by Y)" with no justification, and similar editing that I want to bring to up. Her editing is overbearing to an unacceptable extent to me. Based on what I've seen while using this site. And deleting opinions/contributions other than say, grammar and spelling, is not on. All part of a general pattern. Please see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Violetriga).Kreen

I've had a chance to check back over the two paragraphs. I agree the first paragraph may not be agreed with by everyone. But I stand by what I said. Violetriga should not just delete this contribution (and mark that "minor"), its content, or part of it, could be rephrased and worked into the article. If Violetriga was not interested in discussing/doesn't have time to discuss the para's then she should leave it. Constant "(Reverted edits by X to last version by Y)" is not enough. (As for engaging her... I'd already decided to steer clear of editors who are very combatitive.)Kreen