Talk:Michael Schumacher/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Hungary '06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clashes with Damon Hill?

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

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

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

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

Battles with Damon Hill section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

first paragraph/great vs. successful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This line keeps changing but at the moment it is "He is statistically the most successful Formula One driver ever and is considered by some to be the greatest of all time.[1]" We racing fans love to have endless debates about the comparable "greatness" of our favorite drivers, but the first paragraph in a Wikipedia article is not the place for them! The first paragraph should be direct statements of fact that someone who knows nothing about the subject would need to know. Saying he is the most successful or even "statistically the most successful" is an important, basic fact that someone should know about MS. That he's some people's favorite driver and that some consider him the greatest is not only unimportant, but is obviously implied by the statement of fact that he has had more success than anyone else.

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

Too much emphasis on 2006

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

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

Retirement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1997

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

Salary

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

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

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

Statistically prolific

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some pieces from the Ayrton Senna article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1997 WDC standing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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