Talk:Kimi Räikkönen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Name & Spelling[edit]

Why do people constantly write Räikkönen's surname in the wrong way, i.e. "Raikkonen"? It is not the preferred spelling, not even an acceptable one. This is not a book, movie, city or country, where different spellings are used in different language-speaking areas. This is an individual person, and their names (particularly when using the same script as the language spoken) have fixed spellings. If you merely don't know how to type ä and ö on your keyboard, copy&paste them from an earlier mention, or write them as ä and ö. If you're on some Holy War to remove accented letters from the face of the Earth, bring the issue up on the Village Pump or another discussion forum. JIP | Talk 11:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Räikkönen/Raikkonen's own website doesn't use accented letters, so calm down. Mark83 10:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Is the website written by Räikkönen himself? I very much doubt he'd spell his own name that way. Websites, even official ones, are not an authoritative source for people's names. Besides, even if Räikkönen wrote the website himself, I figure the reason for "Raikkonen" is only to avoid technical problems, not because it's an acceptable spelling. JIP | Talk 10:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure he doesn't write it himself. In any case accenting it correctly is the ideal, but given that the BBC and ITV in the UK don't, you cant blame some for not picking up on this. Mark83 15:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Websites, even official ones, are not an authoritative source for people's names. So why should this one be any different?
However, no source has been given for the spelling 'Räikkönen'. Just because that is the 'correct' spelling of Räikkönen does not mean that it is the correct one to use (although it probably is). Further, given the use of Flash on the website, it would have been trivial to ensure that the accents were in place.
Räikkönen is the correct way, and it is used on his official website.[1] I think this matter should be approved / deleted as it is now solved. Its a bit trivial really, he probably doesn't do it with autographs etc. for obvious reasons, but it is his real name. Whether or not it needs to be used and policed I don't know. jjintheuk 02:29, 11 March 2010 (GMT)


This meant Räikkönen did not race; though, team boss Ron Dennis has stated that they had to physically restrain him from racing, in spite of Raikkonen being aware of the dangers involved - displaying, yet again, the marvellous courage that endeared him to many, after his refusal to play it safe in the European Grand Prix.

Biased much? That's not courage, that's stupidity and being desperate for points to beat a rival who was almost certainly not going to race.

The most monumental of wins was secured when he overtook Renault driver Giancarlo Fisichella on the final lap. This unique and memorable drive brought tears to the eyes of Mclaren boss Ron Dennis, and was made even more special for the Finn by the fact that he beat World Champion Fernando Alonso in a straight fight I agree it was a great pass, but this is supposed to read like an encyclopedia article, not Finnish Boys Racer Weekly. That last sentence is fluff. 03:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Surely the bit about him being the "best driver of the current era" is the most blatant piece of bias possible and should be removed?


I've just finished removing some blatant points of view and I'm glad to see someone already agrees with me. Regarding Ron Dennis restraining him - I don't see how that's possible. Räikkönen was on his own in his car and drove it into his garage, I didn't see Ron out on the track with his tow truck making sure he did that!

Other pieces I've removed:

  • "...driving a superb race"
  • "However, Räikkönen was soon back to winning ways"
  • "Kimi once again experienced some poor luck" (this one isn't that bad, just sounds like we're sympathising)
  • "With some masterful strategy from the McLaren team"
  • "...when he tragically suffered.."
  • ""Kimi Räikkönen's blistering pole position time"
  • "symptomatic of the horrendous luck he's endured"
  • (About JPM) "who displayed a beautifully driven flying lap"
  • Numerous instances of "Mclaren" changed to McLaren
  • Even calling someone by their first name in articles bothers me. Would you edit the article on the current President of the United States thus: "George is attempting to push through controversial legislation"? No way! Bush or George Bush is the acceptable term. Mark83 23:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, "President Bush" or "President George Bush" are the acceptable terms as respect for the guy's title (even for foreigners, even if you disagree with him), not "George", not "Bush", not "George Bush". Just like "Mr. Räikkönen" is the proper way to show respect for himself and his family. 09:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Have to disagree. Using "Bush" or "Räikkönen" is not disrespectful in the context of an enclyopedia and IS the accepted term, see the article. Mark83 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes in the article[edit]

I have recently changed some things in the initial paragraph where things like "Raikonnen and his less than enthusiastic comentaries" made the article appear as biased in fact showing POV in wikipedia articles....

While I respect other people's opinion I have to say that information like height and weight is expected to be found in web sites like F1-live but it is irrelevant to wikipedia as we are not discussing how competitive a driver can be by being lighter and less tall.

Some aditions I've made have been reverted by, while I do thing they need to be improved in terms of gramar perhaps or being little bit more straight forward I do think as well they need to appear there as this web site is accesed by people who often don't follow the F1... I'll revert once again the changes as by wednesday but stll they are subject of editing or removal... perhaps we could discuss what are the things that need to be changed


The current section on his 2005 season is poorly written and very POV. An earlier version was much better, in my opinion. I tried to revert to that a few weeks earlier, but it was reverted again, with the comments that it was POV and "too long". ( It certainly was less POV than the current version. And what's wrong in a section being long, as long as it contains relevant info? Great Red Spot 07:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please write it yourself, make it a summary not a timeline race by race, tell the big story, point out what is exactly POV and why is poorly written. C trillos
"His cool and consistant performances were accompanied by his speed and aggresiveness, thus becoming a title contender. Had it not been for some bad luck and the speed of his rival Fernando Alonso he could have been World Champion."
This is POV.
"Even in these circumstances the McLaren Mercedes star stormed the field with perfect qualifying laps..."
Also POV.
"The season progressed and team orders were present in both McLaren and Renault."
When you make such a statement, shouldn't you back it up with some instances? I got the distinct impression that Renault used team orders a lot more than McLaren did. But then, that is also POV as it is merely my impression and not based on any evidence.
"Although the championship was very much a story of Räikkönen chasing Fernando Alonso in the points table, both were very reliable making both just one mistake each during the season."
Inaccurate. Off the top of my head, I remember Räikkönen stalling on the grid in Australia, and making mistakes in qualifying in Bahrain, Brazil and China. Alonso messed up Hungary first with a mistake in qualifying and then with an over-optimistic move down Ralph Schumacher's inside. He also went off track a few times in the European GP. Then there was the mistake in the German GP during qualifying.
The reason I feel the section is poorly written is that it does not provide a lot of information about Räikkönen's season. It instead replaces them with statments like "Reliability problems were not uncommon in Räikkönen's car as the Mercedes Benz engine blew up several times in practice." Why not give the relevant details and leave the reader to decide for himself whether Räikkönen suffered from "bad luck" or not? The earlier version that I've referred to above, I felt, gave much more information than the current one - all in all, it told the "big story" a whole lot better than the current version. Great Red Spot 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
All right, as I told you, you can do it yourself. The last version failed to be a summary, this version fails to be neutral and it lacks of important data, the last version was even more plagued with POV than this one... things like magnificent performances from Kimi and so on.... What I'm trying to point out is the fact that there is no reason to revert to a previous version, instead the section most be either improved or totally rewritten from scratch. C trillos
I've rewritten a lot of the previous version now. Great Red Spot 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Formula One results[edit]

first, It's gotta be shown in another format... a table or something.

Second, I don't think it is relevant to include non-podium finishes

third, too long!!

Someone who knows how to add a table like style is needed (cuz I don't know)

C trillos (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)I know it's only small, but doesn't it seem strange that he is the 'highest paid driver' when his salary is on reputed?? For all we know, Lewis Hamilton or Fernando Alonso may get's pure conjecture220.245.194.38 (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC) you think team orders are fiction? ask Flavio you are editing with your ego


Since when does something being "POV" constitute the need for change? Who are you to say that information placed on a website with good intentions is "POV"?

When it reads more like a comic book ("The Exciting Adventures of Kimi!") and less like an encyclopedia article, you probably need to watch for POV. This should be self-evident. Substitute "good intentions" with "journalistic style" and you will be on the right path. Use your Geocities page for your fansite and leave the credibility in Wikipedia.

Tyre changes[edit]

"Opinion is divided as to whether he should have persevered on the track or rather pitted for a tire change and a relatively safe third place - however this is a moot point as tire changes were not allowed in 2005, though this incident resulted in a rules modification allowing teams to make one safety-related tire change per Grand Prix." (From the 2005 season bit)

This doesn't match with my recollection. I don't think the rules ever said that you couldn't change tyres under any circumstances, which is the implication here. I don't think therefore that it is a moot point, and that everything from "however, this is a moot point" can be deleted.

Anyone got a race report from the time? 4u1e

And come to think of it - I don't think there was ever a rule that 'allowed teams to make one safety related tyre change per Grand Prix' - wasn't it just worded around safety and force majeure? 4u1e

You're right - the rule said that only "a punctured or damaged tyre" could only be changed, but was vague on what was a damaged tire. Nobody knew if a flatspot was enough. There was no rule change after the race, and there was no limit on the number of legitimate changes allowed. --Don Speekingleesh 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Amended as proposed. 3 August 2006 4u1e

This accident did, in part, lead into a rule change/clarification. It only happened two months later [1]. I brought back the "moot point" part, modified and clarified. There's no need to delete the whole part, as the lack of clear info did affect many teams struggling with flat-spotted tyres. And this: "Raikonnen could have changed a tyre legally under the rules at the time" certainly isn't true. Prolog 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on interpretation, not an amendment. Still not a 'moot point'. A moot point mean the question is hypothetical, implying that McLaren absolutely could not have changed the tyre and so there is no point debating whether they should have. This is not true. Teams were allowed to change 'dangerous' tyres, but McLaren chose not to as they were uncertain whether their tyre was damaged enough to be considered dangerous (yes this was a dumb rule!) and didn't want to take their chances with the FIA's interpretation of the rule. I don't object to the rest of the paragraph, but have deleted 'moot point' as this is an incorrect application of this phrase. --4u1e 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ability POV[edit]

"he is probably the best driver in the current era of the sport however due to a series of technical failures and other drivers mistakes has not yet reached his full potential" (From the summary at the top)

Surely this is blatant fan POV? What makes the best driver anyway? Wins: not him. Championships: not him. Poles: not him.

Surely the "best" title is way too subjective? swishfish


One can do no better than Strunk. See page 46. "Use this word only of matter capable of direct verification, not of matters of judgment." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cia123454321 (talkcontribs) .

Im not sure what you're referring to here. Perhaps you could explain. Thanks. Mark83 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many of the profiles of today's drivers are dripping with subjective assertions, rather than facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cia123454321 (talkcontribs) .

Indeed, and that's why I reverted your edit. Additions like occasional episode of brain fade and He leaves McLaren with something of a reputation among his fans as a car breaker are not facts, but subjective opinions and original research. Prolog 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Raikkonen has one of the worst records of mechanical and other dnfs. I suggest you find some wiccian acceptable way of pointing this out to the reader. I think the entire wiccian reversion is a slimly way of the old-timers getting their way. It's as distasteful as the founder being caught enhancing his own bio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cia123454321 (talkcontribs) .

Consistent reliability issues of McLaren-Mercedes are covered well in the 2005 section, at least. If you want to speculate with "brain fades" and "engine breaking", I suggest you find some reliable sources and read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Thanks, Prolog 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It is largely a car, not driver issue. If you can find an authoritative source that says Räikkönen is hard on his car, great, it would be very interesting to many readers. But without such a source it cannot feature here. Mark83 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Kimi[edit]

Kimi is now a Ferrari driver, so I took out the picture of him with the Mclaren overalls. Pictures are now circulating of Kimi at Ferrari.

So upload one and put it in the article, rather than just deleting them from articles. A picture of him in McLaren overalls isn't such a horrendous thing, is it? He's still the same guy, I don't think it will cause much upset to most readers of the page. I've reverted this change as, in my view, not being an improvement to the article. Always happy to discuss. Cheers. 4u1e 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As a further thought, Wikipedia has a strong preference for free use pictures, so a fair use image of KR, all that will be available at present, would likely not be an improvement. 4u1e 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A picture of him in McLaren overalls is essential IMO. Are we seriously suggesting that his McLaren career was insignificant?!! Mark83 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, it should be tagged with {{Replaceable fair use}}. Prolog 23:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You've lost me. The image of him in his McLaren race suit is free use. Do you mean any Ferrari fair use image should be tagged {{Replaceable fair use}}? That's correct of course. Mark83 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Sorry if I was a bit unclear. I was replying to 4u1e's "a fair use image of KR". Prolog 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


I've deleted the testing "diary" and times. Wikipedia is not a place to post "up-to-the-minute" updates. It's irrelevant of knowing that Kimi has tested the new car. What matters is to have encyclopedic summarized facts of the season. VincentG 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vincent, I'm inclined to agree with you about the testing. However, please don't threaten to revert others' changes without discussion - that's how edit wars start. Wikipedia works by consensus, if you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, I would recommend talking out your differences here and finding a position both of you can live with. None of us get to decide unilaterally what goes in the article. 4u1e 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
(Clarification - my comment was in reaction to something Vincent has now removed from his statement above. I wasn't having a go at random, honest! :-)) 4u1e 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I seem to be harsh, but it's because I discovered that on Wikipedia, like everywhere in the world, politics goes on, "fundamentalists" of any kind, thinking they have the sacro-saint truth in the palm of their hands, decide that things must always go like they want or else. You're right, I don't have to decide what's good and not, but what's work for me, must works for others, and lately, I've seen the contrary. What I mean is that it's not so easy to be part of the "clique" on Wikipedia. I feel that open-source is more of a twist of rhetoric than the reality...Anyways. VincentG 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well up to the minute is good, but I know what you mean, not random news clippings that will be out of date in a week. I agree with your removal of that section, but disagree with removal of any genuinely encyclopedic contributions - about testing or not. e.g. If he were to have a Massa-esque or even Hamilton-esque crash, that would be worthy of addition IMHO. Mark83 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that something big like the Massa or Hamilton crashes are worth of mention.VincentG 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I say - I agree with the edit, just not the sentiment about reversion, which has gone now anyway. By the way, if you ever feel I'm acting like part of a "clique" and taking no account of others' views, you definitely have my permission to pull me up on it. Cheers. 4u1e 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Just noticed the lack of anything but racing stuff in here. I know that is what he is known for, however surely there should be a bit more about his personality and/or personal life in here? Even just basics would do. 12:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Loony BoB

i agree with u bro.we shud add some personal details of him too.things about his wife family are must in a encyclopedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussain27syed (talkcontribs) 18:29, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Thats right. I mean, he infamously refuses to talk to the media before races, yet there is no mention of anything like this in the article.

There's nothing about who he actually is. Nickname 'The Iceman'. His famous lack of tollerance with the media and sponsors. His curt and often humorous responses to media questions. Like him or not, these are facts which define him as a person, and shouldn't be left out.


Could you add ? It's a webbie for Kimi and his wife, model Jenni Dahlman. There are the pics of all the races and other events by year :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC).


The Kimi Räikkönen Space at is a must for all Kimi supporters and fans. It's where they can follow his career live as it happens, with up-to-date news from all over the world regarding his career only, race reports, a huge photo archive regularly updated with other miscellaneous art such as wallpapers and avatars, tribute videos from each GP race weekend, especially made for Kimi fans as well as other videos, and the most accurate and up-to-date statistics and information (I've seen plenty of fan sites that don't even update his race statistics). So, it really is a nice place for fans interested in his career. It only properly began as the Kimi Räikkönen Space in late 2006, and so far it has reached 50000 views. Being a loyal supporter for nearly 6 years, I love Kimi and his talent and I feel obliged to atleast make a fansite that honours his name and what he does.

Thank you.

p.s I'm glad the bias thing is sorted out on his wiki page, the man himself is a down to earth and straightforward person and only says what's neccessary. And it's the right way to right articles for the public. It's okay if it's in your column or fansite obviously.


i think would be cool - i'd do it myself but the list on his official site is blank atm so this is a reminder for people to check it and put it here 11:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper spelling of his name[edit]

Please don't change his name to Raikkonen. It's same as Hamilton would be called Hemiltan, those are not "accented letters" but completely different letters in the Finnish alphabet. Kimi is Finnish and this is his name for 100% sure. Read the Wikipedia naming conventions.--Pudeo 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions state the use of non-English accented letters is disputed as no clear concensus could be formed. Narson 07:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
We should use what is most used in English speaking countries, which based on sources such as BBC [2], ITV [3], ESPN [4], Sydney Herald [5], The Times [6] is Raikkonen. John Hayestalk 09:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's nothing new that the English press does not use non-standard alphabet letters. Bare in mind that there has been a long discussion about this in Talk:Teemu Selänne, a Finnish ice hockey player. No-one in Finland, Sweden, Norway or Denmark would write his name "Raikkonen", and of course his official name is Räikkönen in documents. As I said, in Finnish, Swedish etc. alphabets "Ä", "Ö" and "Å" are completely different letters. Would "Raekkoenen" be better then? No. That can't be used either, what would happen with former prime minister Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Jaeaetteenmaeki? Or I'll give an example how Finnish would sound like that "Sääskiä Äänisjärven jäällä" (mosquitos on Lake Onega's ice) Saeaeskiae Aeaenisjaerven jaeaellae? Although in conventions "accented letters" might be disputed, there is a strong consensus that they should be used. Just check German cities for examples, all of course with the proper name. Wikipedia uses Unicode for a purpose, and has redirects too. --Pudeo 09:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, we don't have to follow the concensus on other wiki pages unless its entered into policy. Taking a glance at the page (official F1 page) I notice that most of the time they use Raikkonen. Heck, its even splashed across the front. Narson 09:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am half german and I appreciate what you are saying, in Finland, Scandinavia or Germany I would use the umlaut, I probably would even use it privately in English, but this is English wikipedia not Finnish/Swedish/Danish/Norwegan/German Wikipedia, so we should use whatever is in common usage in English speaking countries. I am well aware of the Teemu Selänne situation, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because one article does something one way, doesn't mean this article has to. John Hayestalk 10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There's probably not a single biography of a Nordic person here that would not use the official, proper spelling. Using the official spelling when the common English spelling is the same with just the "accents" omitted has become the de facto policy, and policy almost always evolves from actual practice, which is why written policies and guidelines are (or should be) descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Prolog 11:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Raikkonen is not incorrect, however (and likely more correct in an English stand point, as accented letter don't exist in our alphabet) and much easier to type out for the majority of Wikipedia users, I would say that if the title stays accented, that is acceptable, however within the body of text we should probably stick with the common english 'Raikkonen' Narson 11:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, what factual content Wikipedia loses if it mentions his real name? It's easy for everyone to write ä or ö by simply pressing ¨ + a/o. Even if you can't do that, we have an redirect from Kimi Raikkonen. Sure the press can do what they want, but shouldn't Wikipedia as an encyclopedia write his actual name? --Pudeo 11:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No. We go by what he is commonly known as in English. Same way we don't have an article about Genevé, we have one about Geneva. We don't have one about <insert chinese characters here> we have one about Mao Zedong. Narson 11:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"This is not a book, movie, city or country, where different spellings are used in different language-speaking areas. This is an individual person". Ä and Ö are Latin letters. It is dubious to claim Wilhelm Röntgen, Hermann Göring, Görlitz or whatever would be more "un-english" than the handicapped version. Raikkonen is a different last name (of 16 persons who live in Finland according to Population Register Centre. Räikkönen is the last name of 936 persons [7]) --Pudeo 11:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not claiming that of any of those articles, I am simply talking about this one, but on those I would suggest you would find the common usage of Göring and Röntgen is with the umlaut, whereas with Räikkönen it isn't. Could you provide an English language source which uses the umlauts? John Hayestalk 12:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Not that those would be necessary, but Google News has plenty of English-language articles using "Räikkönen". Prolog 12:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I would argue it is necessary to prove common usage, but nonetheless you are correct, clearly The Times can't make up its mind either. [8] John Hayestalk 12:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<deident>Having checked back to what the original user started the article with, it was Raikkonen. Narson 12:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was created here at "Kimi Räikkönen". In a few hours, "ä" and "ö" were added to the lead also, and the original creator thanked for this change. Prolog 12:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, despite the fact that 99% of the world has a keyboard that's capable of producing pretty much any accented character, using the ¨ -key, we should still use a retarded rendition of his name, nevermind the fact that a and ä are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT phonemes in Finnish. His name is Räikkönen. I don't go about spelling foreign languages without accents, learn the fact that some languages - unlike English - use a few extra letters to represent phonemes instead of tangling itself in complicated spelling like English does. It's a whole different thing when you transliterate someone's name, but God forbid if somebody has to find a keyboard with an ä and an ö or use the ¨ key to enter those letters. --nlitement [talk] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Narson 15:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Kimi Räikkönen, Espoo, Finland. As far as we know he hasn't moved to Britain and changed his name, Raikkonen is a _different_ last name, used by 16 persons in Finland. It is erroneus to use a different last name here. --Pudeo 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Note, Finland, not Suomi is used there, because we use English, where ä and ö do not exist. His name used in most English media is Raikkonen. Narson 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
FIA refers Räikkönen by his real name in their page and FIA legal driver documents: [9] --Pudeo 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not "layman"-opedia, or whatever you want to make it into. I'm not sure why some of you have such trouble accepting his real name, names are spelt identically to the way they're spelt in the person's native language unless it's not in Latin alphabet. --nlitement [talk] 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, for example see the debate at Talk:Kiev/naming about Kiev/Kyiv debate. Common usage in English is Kiev, Ukrainian usage is Kyiv. Currently the artice is at Kiev. Obviously this is just an example, and doesn't impact this debate, but it goes to show that the "real" name is not always the one used. John Hayestalk 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I think the proper spelling of his name is Räikkönen. First of all, the case of Kiev is not comparable to this one, as big cities are always transliterated or even renamed by tradition. But Räikkönen is the name of an individual, and why should a worldwide used encyclopedia change his name? Have a look at the debate on Talk:Novak Đoković. No one can create this Đ letter, the official website of ATP and even his own website uses Djokovic, but the community of Wikipedia holds to the original spelling, because they respect the name of a person. Räikkönen can be written down without any difficulty, the official website of Formula-1 and his official website uses Räikkönen. I think an encyclopedia should respect the names of people particularly in those cases when the original spelling doesn't cause any incomprehensibility. It is evident that a Russian name is transcribed (though the original spelling is always in the article, right after the other one), but I think there is no point in wiping the accents of a perfectly recognisable name which is even used in its original form in the English-speaking world as well only for the pleasure of anglicizing. Pumukli 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Uhm. The F1 site uses the accented form only within its bowels. All over the front of it its things like 'Brazilian race analysis - Raikkonen a worthy winner'. Once again, other wikipedia pages are /not/ policy, though if there were there are examples of not using correct names. Ethelred II, for example, and other articles where we have dropped the use of Æ as it is no longer a character in English. Narson 08:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Kings & royality are very different, wondered sometimes why German kings are Charles? Different language names for royality are used in almost every language (well, ones which had used the forms a bit earlier). A 21st Century invidual's name can't be changed. Räikkönen is Räikkönen of course in all EU-wide documents. A personal name can't be translated. Transliterated? No, Transliteration is the practice of transcribing a word or text written in one writing system into another writing system. Latin alphabet can't be transliterated to Latin alphabet. As said before, Raikkonen is a completely different word. Raekkoenen could be perhaps acceptable, but very clumsy. --Pudeo 10:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

<deident>The point was not that he was royal, but that he used a latin character, namely Æ, which we no longer use in the English subsection of the latin alphabet so we use the common English 'translation' 'transliteration' or what have you to Ethelred. Same way we have Aether not Æther, Fetus not Fœtus, the other spellings are noted but not used throughout (These do not prove a policy, obviously as one WIki article is not a precedent for annother, but they do prove that the 'standard' you describe is more grey than you make it out to be). Now Raikkonen might indeed by an incorrect 'translation' of his name into common English, it is however the one that is commonly used. In the same way, if this encyclopedia was written before the 1930s, I would expect the Iran article to be at Persia, equally incorrect but netherless the common name of it at the time. Narson 11:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I quote from WP:ENGLISH "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example: Christopher Columbus, Venice; often this will be the local version, as with Edvard Beneš." Often this will be the locale version, but not always. In this case, as my sources above showed, the common usage is Raikkonen. John Hayestalk 12:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Also "There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus." As you see there is no consensus to use the umlauts, and as it states, general English usage is without. John Hayestalk 12:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I keep to my opinion though that the perfectly recognisable name of an individual have to be respected in an encyclopedia, even though it may use accent marks. Newspapers can use Raikkonen, but their aim is not the same. An encyclopedia has to strive for accuracy and changing the name of a person just because it's the common usage is not acceptable. There's a redirect for the common usage, but the main article has to stick to the original form of the name. We are speaking about a living person not about a hypothetical question! Pumukli 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The newspapers you derride are far more reliable sources than wikipedia. Your views are accutally now stating the opposite to the naming conventions, that common usage is irrelevant. Common usage is what the rules state as the guideline, so is indeed /completely/ acceptable. Verifiability over truth. As for it being a living person, no, its an entry on an online encyclopedia, it doesn't live, breath, poop or reproduce. Narson 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Kimi Räikkönen is the version used by the person in question. English language sources routinely use ä and ö when writing foreign names. In music, history or politics, the question of simplifying the person's name would not even arise. Only in sports, the journalists are sometimes too lazy to write the names properly. Such laziness does not constitute "usage" as defined in the conventions. --MPorciusCato 14:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we proved earlier that it does occur in history. I have never read the convention about 'Ignore common usage due to lazy sports journalists' must be a new one. Narson 14:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The naming convention in all other Finnish names is clear: use the original form. Why should we "translitterate" the name into a form where it cannot be distinguished from another actual Finnish name nor be pronounced properly? --MPorciusCato 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines are too general and not clear enough so every single case has to be decided one by one. If the original form of his name wasn't used at all then it would be an other case, but Räikkönen is widely used as well, it can also be considered as common usage, with the advantage of its being the real form of his name. An encyclopedia has to be as accurate as possible. I have no problem with newspapers though your argument that they are more reliable sources than Wikipedia is pointless because there's no need for sources if you don't want to change a most natural thing like a name. Also that you make mock of what I say doesn't change its veracity. This article is about a living person whose name should be respected. Pumukli 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You will very rarely see Raikkonen referred to as Räikkönen in the English press. We are using a niche usage of his name within English, infact the most prominent hits I get when searching for Kimi Raikkonen are with it just like that, outside of wiki articles. As for your demand that we respect living persons, I am not suggesting we change his name to something derisory, merely that the common use of his name in English be respected. In the same way the Finnish wikipedia uses 'Elisabet II' who is the daughter of 'Yrjö VI', we should use the Raikkonen because thats how he is known and spelt by the majority of the English speakers. Narson 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the guidelines this is not the place to discuss it. You need to discuss it at the place where those guidelines are decided. My personal preference would be to use Räikkönen, but from the guidelines, as I understand them, we should be using Raikkonen, based on it being the more common spelling in English language sources. John Hayestalk 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As "This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources"" states, it is not about it being the most accurate, or disrespecting him. John Hayestalk 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
My personal preference is probably for Räikkönen as the lead sentence. I must admit I'm very torn on the whole issue. I would say it should be the title and we use Raikkonen in text, but I am sure then we would deal with the barrage of 'But Räikkönen is clearly ok then' and it would be against guidelines too, so I'm drawn back to Räikkönen being in the lead sentence and then back to Raikkonen. My main issue is the assertion that because Kimi is finnish we should be using a finnish alphabet by default and everyone is insulting him by thinking otherwise. Narson 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If changed the page should be moved to Raikkonen, and every reference to his name changed, with the Finnish version mentioned once in the first line. John Hayestalk 15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing "Ä" to "A" or "Ö" to "O" is akin to changing "Q" to "O". It's just another funny dash, like those two funny dots? But I don't blame you, this has been orchestrated by the trash media with their propaganda campaigns handicapping different language names. =) But can't we just agree to use proper names, like we do on all other names? (Just check List of Germans, List of Czechs, List of Swedes and so on.. Or how do you like Vietnamese names in Wiki? Nông Đức Mạnh) --Pudeo 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you say but I'd still prefer Räikkönen. As I have said before I think it wouldn't cause any misunderstanding, and even those who use Raikkonen know the original form of his name. But whatever you do please be consistent - because the article about Mika Häkkinen also uses accent marks. Pumukli 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Narson seems to be very biased towards "Raikkonnen", for some reason. But, the only proper spelling of Kimi's last name is the one Kimi uses. Even if there are people who prefer to dumb down things, spelling _Raikkonnen_ is disrespectful. If Kimi wanted to become a UK or USA citizen, then he'd legally have to change his name to, probably, Raikkonnen. He's still Finnish, as far as I know. Therefore, his name is still Räikkönen, and this is an encyclopedia, not a USA-based fan site or something. It's also incorrect to call this English Wikipedia. English is not my native language, and still I only use this version, because of the number of articles and information. This is international Wikipedia. Narson, you're out of arguments as you have compared this matter to cities, countries, kings, which shows you're not educated in this matter - otherwise you wouldn't commit such errors. I'll repeat, Kimi still didn't become a UK or USA citizen, which means his last name is still Räikkönen. It's a fact. And I expect Wikipedia to provide facts. News reporters might be uneducated, but Wikipedia shouldn't be, it's there to provide knowledge and facts - without opinions, personal preferences, national preferences etc etc. Over and out, Dan Horvat.

<deident>Ignoring the ignorant personal attacks, I hate to tell you, this /is/ the English Wikipedia. That it is the most popular of the language wikipedias is because English is the most widely understood (and used) language on the net. The rest of your post I am going to ignore as it is strawman argument where you have synthesised a position for me and proceeded to knock down positions I don't even hold. Narson 10:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

$0.02: I prefer to see the spelling with accents in cases like this (provided the redirects from the 'naked' version come here), cos it's more accurate, but, importantly, still perfectly comprehensible to those of us not used to accents. Narson is right in saying that this is the english language Wikipedia though, the important thing here is what works for an English-speaking audience (not necessarily a natively English-speaking audience though!). But as I say, I don't think using the umlauts (if that's what they're called in Finnish) will cause anyone a comprehension problem. Using, say, Cyrillic script for a Russian driver's name 'because it's more correct', would not benefit the encyclopedia. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it was more an objection on principle that the idea of 'Raikkonen' being wrong, when it is equally correct as his common name (in English) as his official name. The whole thing descended into WP:POINT I fear. Narson (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit I skipped reading the actual debate (mostly) on the basis that there couldn't possibly be that much to discuss about it. So, why did I comment? Er....good question...Hmm... 4u1e (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You are mad as biscuits? Just a suggestion ;) And yes, it was mostly circular. I'd avoid the whole thing if I were you, I wish I had :) Narson (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Could be, could be.... :D 4u1e (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"...the idea of 'Raikkonen' being wrong, when it is equally correct as his common name (in English) as his official name." It's not. As someone here already pointed out, but was ignored, Räikkönen and Raikkonen are two entirely different names. It's the same as Jon and John. You wouldn't put "Jon F. Kennedy" in an article would you? Curt Cobain? No matter how widely used "Raikkonen" is, it simply is not his name. I could start a trend and soon millions of people would be typing Renaugh instead of Renault, but it still wouldn't be correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, April 2, 2008

2007 section[edit]

Needs a total rewrite, uses alot of loaded language (Hamilton snatched pole. Raikkonen dominated the weekend.) and goes into unnecessary detail, we don't need a race by race commentary, thats what we have the Grand Prix articles for. Adding a NPOV-Section tag for now, will start poking at it later. Narson 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, only notable details of the season should be mentioned, for example how many races he won and which they were. John Hayestalk 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, any particular amazing rides or notable rides could easily be mentioned too, but there are some races where nothing interesting happened. There should not be equal weight given to all races, the ones that are non-notable should just be summarised with 'He went on to win at XXXX' or such.Narson 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes exactly. John Hayestalk 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well as no one has done anything about this yet I've started to try and clean it up, it may take me a while though Madraykin86 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we discuss so that this section can be made neutral? I don't want the following message to appear on any article... After all if we read wikipedia then, lets be sure whatever we are reading is trustable... Paragdhungana (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There are things about him 'dominating' weekends or dominating free practice. The weekend he supposedly dominated...lets look at the qualifying times, for example:
Hamilton got: 1:35.798 1:35.898 1:35.908
Kimi got: 1:35.692 1:35.381 1:36.044
Lets look at free practice times....he was 0.007 seconds faster than Alonso and 0.023 faster than his team mate. Thats not exactly domination. There is also the issue of trimming the section down still to avoid unnecessary detail on races where nothing really happened that is of major impact to Kimi. Narson (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life[edit]

I changed the part which said Kimi idolized James Hunt. Kimi has always said in every instance there was no Formula 1 driver he ever idolized.Shockresistant7 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Räikkönen has drawn comparisons with 1976 drivers' champion James Hunt, who personified the F1 playboy lifestyle."

Has he really "drawn comparations" with Hunt? Räikkönen may not be a disciplined guy but he is far from being a Hunt type of playboy. He is married, for one, and although he has the occasional fun with parties, we have already seen Schumacher partying drunk too. That doesn't make a playboy. IMO the Hunt comparation is only there because Kimi admitted he admires that lifestyle. But I'm not sure he lives that. (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, F1 commentators have compared him to hunt, so, yeah. Though, if it isn't sourced, tag it and, if it doesn't get sourced, bag it.. Narson (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as a passing comment, Hunt was also married, so it's no guarantee that you're not living a playboy lifestyle! I agree that the comparison should not be drawn without a source to support it, however. 4u1e (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a wrong information. Kindly remove. "Räikkönen married fellow F1 driver, Michael Schumacher, on 31 July 2004. The couple had met in early 2001 during the 2001 Australian Grand Prix contest that Schumacher won. The couple have a home in Baar, Switzerland, an apartment in Helsinki, and a villa in Porkkala. In February 2013 it was reported by various media outlets that the couple had separated.[93]." Infact he was married to former Miss Scandinavia Jenni Dahlman in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It was vandalism. It's been corrected. DH85868993 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Kimi's real name isn't Kimi Matias Räikkönen. Its actually Kimi-Matias Räikkönen. F.e. [10] Press ctrl+F and write Kimi. You'll find Kimi-Matias Räikkönen, not Kimi Räikkönen

[11] 1. Whole name? Kimi-Matias Räikkönen, but everybody calls me Kimi. 10. Nickname? Kimi is a somekind of a nickname.

Also, check [12] -> Racing -> Formula 1 -> Scuderia -> Drivers -> Kimi Räikkönen: "Kimi-Matias Räikkönen was born in..." (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, remove my mistake[edit]

Please, somebody help, I have wrongly erased Kimi's car number. Thanks. --J.C. (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed (by User:Ian Dalziel). DH85868993 (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

why is Räikkönen's helmet considered cryptic tobacco advertising?[edit]

why is Räikkönen's helmet considered cryptic tobacco advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think because we all know it is Marlboro but it doesn't say that? There are rumours that say it is the barcode for a pack of Marlboro. Narson (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

hm.. i know Marlboro is the former sponsor for Ferrari... but apart from the colors, any other hints pointing to subtle advertising for Marlboro? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Acctually Marlboro is still the current sponsor, I think. They are still Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro. Narson (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are, and please ignore urban myths like the above mentioned. Barcode for Marlboro indeed. They have logos on the car and teh drivers' gear. There's no need to get as cryptic as barcodes...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the suggestion is that the red and white barcode-like designs near the front of Räikkönen's helmet are similar to/the same as the red and white barcode-like designs that Ferrari run on their cars, which many (most?) people consider to be/recognise as disguised Marlboro branding. DH85868993 (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that all F1 teams decided to end sponsorship by tobacco manufacturers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again they have no need of being THAT cryptic, because they still have the RED & WHITE logos on the drivers' helmets as well as overalls and of course the cars - plus the brand has become SO recognizable that that's all they now need - even the old barcode (giving a visual equivalent of the actual Marlboro lettering) is not necessary any longer for brand recognition. Basically nothing so silly as a barcode pattern on worked into the helmet design is necessary... Tobacco advertising is technically gone, but they can't stop a tobacco company from paying even though they don't get their name on the cars at pretty much all times apart from some testing sessions and so on done where tobacco advertising is still legal.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Marlboro pays Ferrari to have the barcodes, the same thing with Ducati MotoGP-team. They both used to have the Marlboro logo but after EU banned tobaccoads they got the barcodes instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Marlboro racing edition that you can buy today; —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

retirement rumors[edit]

Any reason why these aren't mentioned? I have been hearing rumors for about a year now. Some of the main stream media seems to be picking up these rumors now. See as a ref. (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware, and they should be. Feel free to edit them in (with reference). :) Narson (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The BBC Radio Five Live team has discussed the issue at length on several occasions too. 100% verifiable. Mark83 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool cheers just wanted to check with more regular editors, I've put something in the personal life section.Tommy turrell (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

They are rumours (in the title) and hence should not be put in untill confirmed by Kimi Raikonen. If it is added before confirmation it will be adding to the possibly wrong information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding rumours into an article should be perfectly acceptable, providing it is clearly stated that they are rumours. If you look at other high-profile celebs who have their own pages here, I'll guarantee that they will have one or two 'rumours' in their article(s) somewhere as well. Backed up by a reliable source, of course. Celeb culture as we know it, is driven by speculations like these. Ayrton Prostsign 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs pruning[edit]

This article, particularly the 2008 section, needs some serious reduction in length. It is not required to have lengthy paragraphs on each race, and the Singapore GP section includes information that has nothing to do with Raikkonen. If there are no objections, I will start to reduce some of this stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. A lotof the F1 articles need it, I got done with the Ferrari 2008 section the other week. --Narson ~ Talk 12:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this article needs some serious pruning. But I do have a question, to other regular editors, how much information do we want in this page? Does information regarding why Räikkönen failed to get pole during qualifying count? (for example, "He went wide on the last corner during qualifying...", etc)? And does a detailed information about how he overtook other drivers count? (for example "Hamilton's tyres experienced graining so Räikkönen was able to overtake him", etc). For me, it seemed like, basically, all the information regarding the practice sessions, qualifying and race results can be written in a concise form of a table. Any opinion? --Natasya.deviyani (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be that exact at all, unless it was very notable, like where championship positions were changed a lot or similiar. --Pudeo 09:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


I wanted to find out how old Kimi is, but I couldn't find not even a birthdate on this page. Maybe I didn't see it. but if not, could someone put it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanderudam (talkcontribs) 15:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

His birthdate is on the first line - October 17, 1979. He'll be 30 next week. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not driving in F1 in 2010[edit]

News in Finnish [13] confirm Räikkönen will not drive in Formula One in 2010. His manager Steve Robertson says Räikkönen is still motivated to drive, and a return is possible in 2011. Räikkönen is expected to drive in the WRC and Le Mans in 2010. This is reliable news, but as Finnish media is the first to know there aren't many English sources yet. I'm sure there will be tomorrow. I have changed the article already a bit. --Pudeo' 21:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Fastest driver in the world"[edit]

Surely this is subjective, and has no place in the first sentence of a factual article. The references provided to support such an assertion, a 2 year old quote from the News Of The World and an old, unsubstantiated quote from Moss, are not really enough to make such a bold statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably this chap, anyway. But that's not the point,is it? Britmax (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed that part - it was very out of date and the references weren't great. Weakopedia (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kimi-Raikkonen-with-McLaren-Mercedes.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Kimi-Raikkonen-with-McLaren-Mercedes.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

2012 helmet[edit]

In this picture you can see that insignia sign is still there, actually on very top of the helmet. I think that should be edited in helmet article. One more thing.Kimi's helmet in McLaren was produced by Arai, in Ferrari it was Schuberth, and then in Lotus aggain Arail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Okay, I'll bite. How come does the "runic" symbol on Kimi's helmet look nothing like the rune which the article claims it to resemble? Has this been some editor's flight of fansy or is the symbol intentionally so stylized that it looks nothing like the crow's footprint resembling rune it links to. And if this is some poor sap's attempt at adding some Norse energy into the article, please get your ethinicities right. Swedes were vikings, not Finns. --TheHande (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't even see why the picture needs to be there, especially if it's wrong. Perhaps just delete it to stop the confusion, doesn't really add much to the article. BosleyTree (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

well, it was intentionally so stylized — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Marriage to Michael Schumacher vandal[edit]

An IP keeps marrying Kimi to Michael Schumacher. I can revert again but will be busy in real life soon. Please keep an eye on this. Britmax (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked, so hopefully that will be the end of it. DH85868993 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).