Talk:Michael Schumacher/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Benetton wasn't the best in 1994?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Schumacher had the ability to make cars look better than they actually were. Just compare the results of his teammates to his in 1994. Unbelievable! Schumacher won the title several times with inferior equipment: 1994, 1995, 2000, 2003 and almost in 1997, 1998 and 2006. Even in his first full season in 1992 he beat Senna in a superior McLaren. The only reason Herbert won two races in 1995 (Britain and Italy) was because Hill crashed Schumacher out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 11:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Schumacher really a billionaire?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

not sure where it went, but just found this one [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [2]. 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)

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:[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Given the recent lawsuits against Business F1 magazine, I would not consider it a valid source. See http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32426 as an example. The Dunnie 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Schumacher was the first athlete to earn one billion dollars. It is unfortunate that this isn't clearly stated in the U.S. media because we often think of our country as being "the world." Schumacher made around 60 million dollars U.S. directly from Ferrari SpA. He made another estimated 40-50 million from sponsors. Regardless, I think his status as the first billionaire athlete should be placed in the opening of the article and mention of his generous donations to charity. He currently is still employed by Ferrari as test driver, and will make 20 million dollars this year for this task. Technically however, he is retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumacherfan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your comment to the more conventional end of the conversation. Regarding being a billionaire: he may be. However, only one source mentions it, none of us has direct access to it, it may not be reliable, and some other sources seem to contradict it. You can't just add up his earnings and declare him a billionaire: who knows what his costs are? For example, as you point out, he has given very considerable sums to charity. I do agree that his donations should be mentioned in the lead, as they are very considerable sums. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued vandalism of the debut section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Having spent even more time thinking about it, and, more importantly, listening to the rest of the recording, I'm recanting on this one. The radio show is set up as a mock trial of Schumacher and Jordan is on the defence team, so he can hardly be said to be giving an unbiased view! The same applies to Alan Henry and Maurice Hamilton for the prosecution, of course. What might be good would be a quote from someone involved, even from Jordan himself, at the time - which might be illuminating in terms of how Schumacher was seen before he became the all conquering juggernaut we know and love. Cheers. 4u1e 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, Jordan wasn't actually there when Schumacher first drove the car (at the Silverstone test) he was in Spain. According to Christoper Hilton's biography at least. 4u1e 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

picture of last overtaking

We have a free use picture of the last overtaking, on the 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix, over Kimi Raikkonen.

I think it would be a nice added to the article, but the 2005-06 section has 3 pictures already. Do you think we should take out one and add this picture instead?--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even know why the pic with Chris Dyer was added in the first place. So I vote for it to be the one to go! --Cyktsui 11:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance the picture could be reframed to zoom in on the cars a bit? I appreciate that the track lends context, but at thumbnail size, the cars are very small! DH85868993 12:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't have the knowledge to do that. If anyone volunteers for that...--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 13:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Courtesy of The GIMP 4u1e 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For WP:FA

How about submitting this to WP:FAC and see what people say and work on their suggestions to finally make this a featured article... This is heavily referenced, even if there aren't many books listed as references, what we have is reliable. The POV and controversial issues were handled a long time ago and I believe this could stand a chance. But, what do I know, it would be the first time an article I worked heavily on would be submitted to FAC...--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 21:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed the article is very well referenced and the controversies bit was handled commendably. Although I do admit I'm not Schu's greatest fan, I do hope the article can get it's name alongside Hill; Prost; Imola '94 and Indy '05...Oh and (hopefully) Pryce as well.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 13:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just realized you have asked for FA already. Yes we should! The article is relatively stable already. However, I think there are some info that we can cut out. But overall, it's very good. --Cyktsui 11:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone go ahead and nominate then. Buc 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My [[US$]0.02 The lead should be shortened for FA. This discussion started and stalled long ago on this talk page. I've copied the lead to a draft page Michael Schumacher/Archive 8/lead so we can work on it. I propose:

• shorten the lead to 3 paragraphs
• remove references (it's less distracting to have these in the article, as long as they're not ultra-controversial)

--Otheus 16:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by controversial. They have been the subject of much argument in the past, but I think most editors are happy to reach a consensus, most dissension came from one editor who is currently banned. I agree that references are not required in the lead, all the information there appears later in the article.

The lead looks good now. --Otheus 07:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding FA status, my only real bugbear is the references. There are plenty of them, but some are of very poor quality - being syndicated news stories written by non-experts, selected to support the point being made and sometimes only rather tangentially doing so.

Give me a couple of weeks to work on the references and I'll be happy to nominate and/or support for FA. 4u1e 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed Ernham was banned. Anyway, if you know how I have worked in this article (mainly the controversies section, which I'm really proud of; you can see where I worked on it (User:Serte/Sandbox10), you would know that I'd be very glad to reach a consensus and get this to FA. It would be the first article that I have contributed "heavily" in order to become FA to actually reach that status. Let's do it.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By all means go ahead and nominate. Buc 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's wait for 4u1e to do what he said he was going to and we'll do it then, I think.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I say, let's get some of the weaker refs sorted out - by which I mean getting some hardcopy stuff in there. I'm in a reasonable position to do that, but it will take a bit of time. Having a better balance of hardcopy to web references will give us a better chance at WP:FA. (I'm not criticing the whole article, by the way, Serte and others have done much excellent work, but there are references in some areas whose quality I'm rather unhappy with) 4u1e 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help if I knew which refs are issues. Buc 15:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The general type are those which are from generic (non-specialist) news sites, some of those contain some fairly dodgy work (there used to be one which claimed, quite casually, that Schumacher deliberately drove back onto the track to take Damon Hill out at Adelaide '94, for example. I don't think that was what they meant, it was just sloppy journalism. (It's still there by the way, ref 42, but it's broken now anyway and needs replacing). The wider point though is to get some good hardcopy sources in here. Websites like Autosport, BBC, ITV-F1, GrandPrix.com etc are good online sources, but given that many books have been published on Schumi, we need to reflect that here. Unfortunately, that's difficult to do unless you have access to those books, which I am lucky enough to. If you've got access to such books, feel free to use them to replace some of the weaker looking refs. Otherwise, there are a couple of other things which I think could usefully be done:

• Referencing format: Do we want to change to an approach more similar to History of Saffron or Brabham as suggested somewhere above? Not essential, but it would add to the article.
• Both Phill and I got useful feedback from WP:BIO peer reviews recently (For Tom Pryce and Clay Regazzoni - see their talk pages). Much more useful than the normal peer review process, I thought. If we're waiting a couple of weeks anyway, would it be worth getting a view from there? 4u1e 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes and yes to both points. At least from my point of view.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll nominate at WP:BIO, but would be grateful if others could keep an eye on any comments that are being made by reviewers there. I think I'll have to do refs as I go along, to avoid too much confusion! I'm working on ref'ing the first section, but it's taking a while because a) I'm being conscientious and checking against several sources (that'll teach me!) and b) I'm re-writing the first paragraph (which has been around for ages, and I don't think was added by anyone currently working on the article) which is borderline copyvio from the www.formula1.com bio of Schumi. 4u1e 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominated here for peer review, there is a link in the WikiProject Biography template at the top of the page, but it's hidden in multiple layers of hide/show! 4u1e 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've sorted all the ref. The only issue now is the for him racing 180 times with Ferrari. I'm going to remove it for now but if anyone can find a ref please re-enter it. Buc 08:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on the hardcopy references, and expect to be for the next week or so. I wouldn't be surprised if we get more comments from the Bio peer review as well. 4u1e 23 April 2007, 13:24

Segue

"Schumacher helped develop the first lightweight carbon helmet with Schuberth. In 2004, an example was publicly tested for strength by being driven over by a tank and survived intact.[61] A funnel directed airflow through 50 holes to cool his head and to provide air for breathing.[62]" Can someone who knows about the helmet beat some kind of order into this paragraph? Rich Farmbrough, 13:57 7 April 2007 (GMT).

Copyedits

Please provide some feedback on my copyediting; I only have time for this much (through the Benetton years). I realize some edits might be controversial, and I apologize for stirring up a heated debate. Rather then re-enter the debate, just point out anything deemed controversial, and I'll do my best to decontroversialise it.

I have two concerns.

•  done! What is skidblock. Is there an article on this? Can someone de-red the link? It seems important enough and too obscure enough to not be linked to.

A narrow 'plank' that sits underneath the car to prevent the underside from getting too close to the ground (for complicated technical reasons!). I don't think it rates an article in its own right. 4u1e 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it mentioned in an article on F1 cars? --Otheus 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned, under the guise of a 'plank' in Formula_One_cars#Aerodynamics. I'll disambiguate slightly in the page. 4u1e 09:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I modified that section so that [[4]] can be linked to. --Otheus 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

•  done! Also, does my edit change to the last sentence in 2004 section make sense here? here.

Yes, although 'double world champion' is more normal usage than 'two-time world champion' (IMHO, of course! ;)) 4u1e 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but here's what I was referring to:

the team would win only one more race before being bought by Renault in 2000.

Was the team bought, or was Benetton bought, or other? --Otheus 05:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Benetton team was bought by Renault from the Benetton company/family. Mark83 08:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Otheus 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

•  done! Concerning my changes to the last sentence, as shown here, is it correct that a point is received for finishing? Or for finishing in eighth? If he had finished ninth, would he have received a point? (Otheus 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Point for eighth, no pionts for ninth. I would remove "albeit" it seems like a misleading WW to me. Buc 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

--Otheus 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Otheus. I've reversed or changed a small number of your edits, usually because the existing wording was there for a specific reason, I've given hopefully informative edit summaries. Regarding some of your comments in the text, yes the season summaries are probably in general a bit too detailed still. I don't agree about the pic of Schumacher's engine failing - that's the exact moment his hopes of an eighth drivers' title went up in (ahem) smoke! How can that not be relevant or interesting! Yes it has the fence in the way, but no-one except a professional photographer can get close enough to avoid that. 4u1e 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate the feedback! About the pic -- was that at the exact moment the engine failed? The caption said it was during the race in which it failed. Hey, if you feel strongly about it, put it back in, but change the caption accordingly. :) --Otheus 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I'm making assumptions as it doesn't explicitly say that. However, the car looks to be going very slowly (both it and fence are in focus) and there's a small plume of smoke coming from the rear of the car. Guess the only way to know for sure is to contact the original photographer. 4u1e 04:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

•  done! Controversies session question: This is what I now currently have:

  But as the penalty was given with fewer than 12 laps remaining, and since it was issued as a handwritten note, team Ferrari was confused as to whether the penalty was a 10s stop/go or merely a 10 second penalty, to be added to Schumacher's race time. Just before finishing the race, Schumacher turned into the pit lane and without stopping, re-emerged from the pit and passed the finish line to end his race. *COMMENTED OUT*>>> only serving the stop-and-go penalty after passing the finish line. <<<<

  So... will someone please edit the above to make it factually accurate? I'll then stick it back in. --Otheus 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, but in the article. Mad as it sounds, according to the source, he stopped for 10 seconds after finishing the race. The whys and wherefores of why that stood are why it is controversial. 4u1e 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(The finish line extends across the pit lane, by the way, so it is possible to finish the race in the pit lane rather than on the track) 4u1e 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

• "He supports a hospital for child victims of war in Sarajevo which specialises in caring for amputees."

  That makes it sounds like the war in Sarajevo specializes in caring for amputees. The previous version (before I edited) with "that" was more correct, but it should be re-worded. --Otheus 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, since 'war' belongs to the compound term 'children victims of war' and is very unlikely to be read that way, I'll put a comma after Sarajevo, which removes any doubt. 4u1e 14:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Though it certainly was a cunning use of a comma, :) it still is a dangled modifier. But I'll let you work and others work on it. --Otheus 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I may have a congenital dangling defect (so to speak) in my writing then.... Will keep tweaking anyway, I always feel 'slow matured' articles turn out the best in the end, they're more likely to have had the edges knocked off them and reflect a genuine concensus. 4u1e 18:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your assistance. I'm now leaving this to a proofreader.

---

Notes to proofreader: British spelling in use here. Check capitalisation consistency! Sometimes Championship is capitalized, other times it's not. --Otheus 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

1999 GB GP

Schumacher crashed on the opening lap of the race so he did start the race rather than not start at all. The impression given off by the DNS is he went to the track and didnt get in a car at all which gives off the false impression. so he retired instead of DNS.--Lucy-marie 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact he started the race. It was red flagged four seconds before Schumacher's own crash due to an initial crash (a Minardi and something else I think). Does a red flag mean that race is abandoned and a "new" race is begun? While we're talking about this 1999 British Grand Prix says he crashed on the "warm up lap" which is nonsense. Mark83 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The race was red flagged on the first lap, so the restart was a complete re-run - if he'd been fit, Michael could have started in the spare car. He didn't take the only valid start, so technically he was a non-starter. That's how Forix shows it as well. I agree it could be confusing, but it would be just as confusing to list a retirement when he doesn't appear on the lap chart at all.

No argument that he took the first start - I was standing at Stowe! -- Ian Dalziel 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(This is probably the appropriate time to mention again Niki Lauda's crash at the 1976 German Grand Prix, in which he nearly died and received serious burns. The race was stopped and restarted, obviously without him, so Lauda is shown as DNS in the results. Lauda's has apparently since commented to the effect: "If I didn't start the race, what happened to my ear?" 4u1e 06:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

That makes sense. Though am I correct that 1999 British Grand Prix saying he crashed on "warm up lap" is totally wrong? Mark83 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Must be, 'cos he was racing Irvine at the time! 4u1e 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the template should reflect that Schumacher retired instead of DNS does anyone oppose this?--Lucy-marie 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do. If the restart was a completely new race (which is my recollection), then he should be shown as DNS. FYI, I'm planning to compile a complete list of (WDC) non-starts and "questionable" starts, in the hope that we (as a project) can reach an agreed position on each of them, to resolve issues like this one. DH85868993 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The DNS implies that there was never a race at all that he crashed in. A DNS IMHO should only be used in instances like the US GP 2005 when the cars made no intention at all to start the race. Schumacher did in fact start a race, which must be recorded.--Lucy-marie 16:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not how the stats work. The race that Schumacher started was cancelled, and DNS is therefore correct for the race that was eventually held, without Schumacher.4u1e, 23 April 2007, 12:30

At least in season tables the rule is that if driver is in the first start of restarted race, it is start. If you would ask Michael: did you start British GP 1999 I'm quite sure he would say yes. [[user:BleuDXXXIV|BleuDXXXIV], 21 July, 16:07 (UTC)

The case for a red flag is usually that the race is re-started minus any laps completed. Since a lap hadn't been completed, the restart was as if the race had never been started. Hence, no Schumacher on the grid means DNS. He recieved the same result at the French GP in 96 as well when the engine blew on the warm up lap. Leeboy910 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.194.38 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

obviously Schumacher started the race and crashed out breaking his legs in the proccess. to claim that he didn't start is just stupid. further more even the official Formula 1 website has this entry for the race: "Ret 3 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 0 Spun off 2". thefore i'm changing the entry to DNF. Loosmark (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Jordan comments

Is anyone fussed about keeping the Eddie Jordan comments about Schumacher being better than Senna when he first drove for Jordan? There was a long and ill-tempered discussion about it here. Ultimately I think only Ernham was arguing for it - I changed my mind after realising that the radio show was in a 'trial' format and Eddie Jordan, who by the way wasn't present when MS first drove for Jordan at the Silverstone test, was arguing for the defence (hence not neutral). Otheus has also commented in his recent edits that what Jordan says didn't make any sense, and cut it down slightly to make a more logical statement. It is true that EJ's statement was long, rambling and not very logical. It strikes me we can probably find a better quote from somebody on the impact of Schumacher's first drive which would cause less upset. Anyone mind if I do that? 4u1e 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here're some others that could be used:

• 'before long, clumps of German journalists were talking about "the best talent since Stefan Bellof".' Journalist Joe Saward (he runs GrandPrix.com, I believe) on Schumacher's first F1 qualifying session. Taken from Christopher Hilton's Michael Schumacher: The whole story.
• '[He was] immediately on the pace, immediately, like bomp-bomp-bomp. Three laps, there he was. No question of "I'll feel the brakes in because they're carbon brakes and I've never driven with them before," no, just bomp-bomp-bomp.' Jordan team manager Trevor Foster on Schumacher's first F1 test for the team at Silverstone. Also from The whole story.

More to come.... 4u1e 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed with the reasons that I have stated before, it's hard to compare two successful drivers and I don't think the statement improves the quality of the article. --Cyktsui 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but how about the comparison with Stefan Bellof, to replace it? That's an actual contemporary comment, and seems to me to make a better job of explaining how people reacted to that qualifying performance at the time. 4u1e 07:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems good for me. It sounds NPOV (not using words like "miles ahead") and it is quite standard for people to say "XX is the best since XX".--Cyktsui 00:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Championship

It seems like we have inconsistency in the word championship. Sometimes it is captialised, sometimes no. For drivers' championship, sometimes it is put down as drivers championship. Which way is correct? --Cyktsui 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

2000-2004: World Championship years

I realised there are references for each race in this section. I am just wondering do we really need them all there? I found it being a bit difficult to read with all those references in there. Any thoughts? --Cyktsui 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, some bits of the article are over-referenced. In fact we seem to be picking up multiple references for some quite trivial points (that Ralf Schumacher is a Formula One driver, for example, which could almost go unreferenced as non-controversial if we're sticking strictly to the guidelines!). Conversely, some quite major points, like the claim that the Benetton B192 was not competitive in 1992, are currently unreferenced. I'm working my way down the article adding hardcopy refs, so I'll try and pick them up as I go. Thanks for all your work recently, by the way! 4u1e 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the information has to be referenced either way. I would be fine if you found a scireboard type page which links to all the race reports for a given year. That way we don't need a new ref for every race. At the moment I don't think it is sufficient. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The other FA standard F1 articles with results in use a blanket reference to the official F1 site, where the results for all years can be found and not inline citations for each race. Looking at the nutshell summary from WP:REF, I see that references are required for "Material challenged or likely to be challenged." It is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever challenge the raw race results - which are in any case given again further down the article. I also note that this is a biographical article, subject to WP:BIO and thus requires extra care relating to "details of personal lives". The references currently being disputed by Cyktsui and Blnguyen appear to reference the following facts:

• That Schumacher won the 2003 San Marino Grand Prix
• That Schumacher won the 2003 Canadian Grand Prix
• That Barrichello won the 2003 British Grand Prix and
• "After the Hungarian Grand Prix" - I have no idea what that means, but the reference appears immediately after this phrase!

I agree that all material in the article needs to be traceable to a reliable source (although it's not clear that that's actually Wikipedia policy), but these appear to be very basic facts which are very unlikely to be challenged. The refs currently in dispute add nothing to the article that is not better dealt with by a blanket note in the refs section, which I have now added. Cyktsui has already removed the references - If they are supposed to support something other than the very basic facts above, can we please discuss it here first? Cheers. 4u1e 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi was reading this and realised vandalism and didn't know how to get rid of.

Can someone please do it?

Making wikipedia a better place Nebuchandezzar 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)NebuchandezzarNebuchandezzar 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reworks - Honours

Hi all

I have reworked the Honours section into chronological order, as it seemed out of order as 2007 award came before 2006 then a 2007 the 2006 then 2008 lol. I also made a few grammar changes to tie them together.

I also added another ref for the Asturia awards - also added UNESCO awards 2002

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed edits

I have removed some PoV edits, as well as some non neutral, and will replace the edits that were ok.

Unfortunately as these were re-edited several times I could not undo selected ones, so will replace the ok ones

--Chaosdruid (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Total Number of wins

Does the total of F1 wins include or exclude the 1997 Championship ?? I know Schumacher was deducted the season's total points, but was he deducted all of his victories too ??? I have no idea. If MS's total victories does NOT include 1997, then shouldn't the inclusive total be listed in parentheses with a footnote ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.35.170.0 (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

They are included. I believe that he kept all his stats from the races, as he wasn't disqualified from them, just lost his championship position. Schumi555 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

True. Bizarre and possibly inappropriate, but true. 4u1e (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2004

The 2004 season seems to have been given somewhat scant coverage. To put it into context, there is more information on how he has been on the pit wall and an occasional test driver in 2008, than on statistically the greatest season for any driver in the history of the sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.161.114 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's probably because it's not a very interesting season to write about - he won lots, no-one else came close. However, if there's stuff to add, go to it, or make some suggestions here and we'll try and add something. 4u1e (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not the Stig.

Schumacher is not the Stig, he was only there for one show.

There is no way that Schumacher was near top gear filming for the last two seasons.

Also this is why the FXX was so much quicker round the track and top gear were allowed to film it on track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.74.188 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably this will become clearer in the next week but this has been announced and your doubts seem very speculative. If he is the Stig, it certainly warrants a sentence in the opening: Schumacher would be copresenter of a progreamme with 350 million viewers, after all. --81.108.128.207 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Also this is why the FXX was so much quicker round the track" it might also be a quick car....Uksam88 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Turns out he is The Stig after all. Jack1956 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM db1987db (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Db1987db, nobody is using this as a forum. We're discussing the reliability of sources and the content of the article. --81.108.128.207 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just reminding anyone who tries to to turn it into one, that's all :) db1987db (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Very sorry. --81.108.128.207 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's ok...just the top two sentences did seem like the start of a Forum... db1987db (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason why he appeared on the show was that he will be one of the 30 people mentioned who actually own an FXX. The offical site says "And how does his Ferrari FXX track car feel compared to a Formula One car?" here, with an emphasis on "his Ferrari FXX". What are the feelings on this being reliable/needed in the article? Schumi555 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier Schumacher was on the show because of HIS FXX, see page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_FXX

Note that Schumacher's FXX is the ONLY one that is black without a stripe, as shown on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.74.188 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know you meant that it was his FXX from your comment earlier. Regards, Schumi555 20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that this Daily Mail article (the only RS I could find covering the unmasking) doubts that he was the Stig for longer than this one episode, which makes sense. It was also never stated that he had been the Stig for longer in the episode, so we shouldn't go stating anything like that without a good source. Plus the end of the episode Clarkson says "I don't think that David Schumacher is the Stig"... – Toon^(talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear : The Stig

In 21. June. 2009 The UK automotive mystery man in Top Gear was Michael Schumacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osphere (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Obv he was the stig it matches with when he resigned from formula 1 and the new stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.244.142 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If this article is to say that Schumacher was the Stig at any point before tonight's programme, it's going to need a good source to verify it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not set in concrete that Schumacher is the stig. There's evidence that it was all a big joke in the show,Fir a start, Schumacher was listed as a guest and not the Stig, it's also evident when he tried to go around the track in the Suzuki Liana. Mainly that Stig already took the Liana around the track in episode 2 of series 8, posting a time of 1:44.4. Looneyman (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is unlikely that any "evidence" will be forthcoming. It benefits nobody for the show's makers to bother providing such unless they could gain some publicity from it. The way it could be listed is to say that he was revealed to be the Stig in that episode of the program and no more than that.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Already put this on the talk page for The Stigs wiki, so may as well add it here too. Evidence that Michael Schumacher is NOT The Stig. On the top gear site, Michael talks about having to learn the Top Gear track prior to lapping the FXX, if he had been The Stig for the last however many years he would not need to do this. So there you go, evidence for something which, in my opinion, was already pretty obvious. Tocheb73 (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That is conjecture and OR unless dominative proof such as Perry McArthys revelations is bought about then there are no definitive sources as to him not being the stig. Just because he says he had to learn the track, for a specific car doesn't mean he he wasn't for most of the other cars.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

motorbikes

No mention in the article about him riding motorbikes? http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/jul/29/formula-one-michael-schumacher-comeback-ferrari Mathmo ^Talk 03:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Michael_Schumacher#2008:_Car_development. DH85868993 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comeback for 2010

Schumacher is coming out of retirement to sign with Mercedes for the 2010 season. Bild has reported it today, but the official contract is to be signed next week. Therefore the information in the Wikipedia should not be changed until the contract is officially signed. Norum 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we change the line where it says December 23rd comeback.......it doesnt read well. Maybe have it on 23 December reports suggested......i think it would make more sense like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.80.139 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Apterygial 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link to the report in Bild: http://www.bild.de/BILD/sport/motorsport/formel1/2009/12/23/mercedes/macht-michael-schumi-schumacher-comeback-moeglich.html

Norum 09:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Organizing the article

Now that the comeback has been confirmed, I feel it would be best to encompass the 'Attempted comeback' and 'Retirement' sections under the dedicated Ferrari section (Section 2) as sub-points, and to give the Mercedes GP information its own section (2.5). The way the article reads right now, the retirement bit is beneath the Mercedes comeback section, chronologically implying that he's retired again. Very misleading. Msplzstoplosin (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)