I apologies but my mother language is not English. Here is the short version of my observation about history. History only worship the winners how they have come to victory it does not matter. So whatever you say about Schumacher how his reputation is destroyed in the eye of the history it is just wishful thinking.
I did read your first post but I've chosen to quote this one for ease really.
My point was not to have a bash at Schumacher, only to point out that in 50 years time the history books will more than likely show the bad with the good.
If you want to write the very briefest of sentences about Schumacher, then you will refer to him as '7x WDC Michael Schumacher' and that's it, job done.
If you write a paragraph, you'll add some other words like 'controversial' as well as 'brilliant' and have a final sentence about his 'failed comeback' (and I know this has yet to be shown, but bear with me).
If you start to write beyond a single paragraph then of course Adelaide and Jerez will be mentioned, maybe the Barrichello thing for Hungary might be forgotten but Rassecasse will not, nor will Austria 2002. Car reliability will be in there as well as the professionalism he has brought to the sport and his four-pitstop achievement. 2010 will be mentioned because Nico has beaten him and, well, that's remarkable. I didn't expect that.
So the more detail you do into, the more there will be to say in order to caveat and put his performances into perspective.
What these history books will not show is all the silly stuff we talk about here and which winds so many people up - the Brokeback Mountain chic, his great charity work, stealing Frentzens woman, and refusing autographs.
You use the word 'worship' and of course a book designed to worship him will certainly have none of the bad stuff, but one which is trying to be objective must surely mention it even if the conclusion is still that he is the greatest who ever lived.