Talk:Lewis Hamilton/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Neutrality in the lead

I take issue with two sentences in the lead.

• A six-time Formula One World Champion, he is widely regarded as one of the greatest drivers in the history of the sport, and considered by some to be the greatest of all time.

• One of the most successful drivers in the history of the sport, Hamilton's six World Championship titles is the second-most of all time (one behind Michael Schumacher), while he holds the outright records for the most wins (93), pole positions (97), podium finishes (162), points finishes (226), career points (3713) and points in a season (413).

Saying "widely regarded as one of the greatest drivers in the history of the sport" is not how we write biographies in an encyclopaedia and is not neutral. It is original research to boot as we are presenting individual accounts, opinion pieces and listicles (he is #17 on some) as evidence. That is not our role. I would be fine to say he has been described by some as the greatest of all time, but to infer widely regarded from some cherry picked sources is just wrong. The second sentence is repetitive of the first and has some of the same issues, but is much more neutrally written and factual (actually listing his accomplishments). AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"considered by some" is WP:WEASEL Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joetri10: You reverted to re-add the word some. I have tagged the word. The sentence is itself is a weasel violation. We can also drop it from the lede entirely. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Some is alright if it is further clarified. For example you could have a opening sentence saying some academics have criticised ..... and then follow it detailing the criticisms from academics. This is clarified at WP:WEASEL with reference to the lead section They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. In theory the lead should hold no new information so as long as we expand on the cite overkill in the body detailing these claims then some can be used in a summary sentence. I will have a go at toning it down. AIRcorn (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I am not a regular editor of this page and feel that it still looks like wp:puffery and trying to tone it down with wp:weasel. Why do we need this type of statements in the lede when one sentence above it lists all the all time records he has, an obvious sign to the reader that he is clearly a cut above the rest. I havent look at the other sports figures articles, as I dont normally edit those type of articles, but it doesnt look great to me. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, but also can see the case for including it. I see neutrality as a spectrum and we generally regress towards the mean. The trouble with articles (actually troubles not the right word, reality is better) is that editors tend to edit articles about things they really like, or in some cases, things they really dislike. So we often end up with a bit of puffery. I think what we have at the moment is OK. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Ave:. "History of the sport" is a peacock term, unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Also it sufferes the same probles mentioned above by synthesisiing multiple source3s together. AIRcorn (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead does have weasel words, but the leads of other record holding drivers do also. See Michael Schumacher and Juan Manuel Fangio for examples. MOS:AWW suggests they are acceptable in the lead, if they are substantiated later in the article. Wouldn't worry about it. They aren't being used to state facts in the article's body. Rolmops23 (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the sentence in question which forms part of the lead (and the bundled sources) are detailed and substantiated later on in the article. Thus, there is no issue here. In addition, "in the history of the sport" is not puffery as it provides context for the various claims about the subject. If we left it as "in the sport" that is too vague as it leaves open the suggestion that he is only being described as the best driver of the current grid (which is not what is detailed later on in the body or in those bundled sources). —Ave (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It's worse than puffery, it's unsupported by the sources. The sources at best say greatest of his generation as I detailed at the RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Just looked at Schumacher and it has the identical sentence with the exact same issues. As opposed to this being acceptable it means that that article also needs to be fixed and that there may be an endemic issue with making overblown statements at motorsport articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Similar sentences are in article leads of other highly successful sportspeople, like Muhammad_Ali and Jack_Nicklaus, so it's not a motorsport article issue, but more a style feature of Wikipedia. Agree that some sources could be more recent, or more closely support the sentences. Rolmops23 (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You are probably right. I looked up Meads, Bradman, Woods and Federer and only Federer doesn't get a similar sentence in the lead (it is covered in the body). People write about things they like and can get a bit carried away, especially with their sporting heroes. I agree we need to reflect the sources better. If there is a reliable source saying they are "widely regarded" as the greatest then a case can be made, but when we start combining individual opinions of greatness and extrapolate it to something we say in wikkivoice to make this assumption it is really just original research. Given its prevalence maybe a wider discussion on when saying something along these lines is appropriate is needed (at a village pump). AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

List of books written by others about the article subject is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: care to comment on this? Are you a regular editor of this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I've edited this article a fair bit over the last few years. I hadn't noticed the violation, unfortunately, but I'm fairly confident that list has been there for a long time now, certainly since before I first edited this article in 2016. —Ave (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR discusses lists in terms of general lists of unrelated topics. MOS:SO suggests 'Further reading' is a more suitable heading than 'Bibliography' for related books. Rolmops23 (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Changes to regulations for 2014 mandating the use of turbo-hybrid engines contributed to the start of a highly successful period for Hamilton - How is this relevant? It is trying to imply that Hamilton gained some sort of advantage because of the rule changes? Every team and driver had the same new rules, so how is this relevant to the fact that Hamilton had a period of success? And why is it so important a fact that it needs to be in the lead? F1 changes rules every single season, yet I cant find any other WC winners page that states in their lead that because of a rule change, they then won the title that year? Should we add these changes to each years winners lead to imply the same, that they gained an advantage because of the changes? Or should we remove these weasel words from this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:215:C500:5CC4:47C6:52B0:F21E (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to same that the engine regualtion changes came (rather than contributed) to the start of a highly suiccessul period for Hamilton. It is relevant because Mercedes' (and by extenion Hamilton's) success was largly due to their engine and it's immediate competiveness at the begining of this era
SSSB (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

But that could be said of any winning car in any series? The fact is all teams had the same rules and deadlines etc, one adapted better than the others. The way it is worded is implying that Hamilton only had the success he has had because of these changes, which is not true at all? I am sorry, this needs rewording to be clearer. And it needs removing from the lead altogether. Disclosure, I have edited the title of this section on the talk page to Edit request Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 14:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the very early RFC, new here, no excuse I am aware. But I would appreciate others input on this please, as it really does seem that this should not be the the lede? Vettel a couple of his first titles because his team adapted the quickerst and used a blown diffuser. This is not stated in the lede as a reason for his success, neither should it be. The same applies to this article IMHOGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 15:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Plus, in the last 7 seasons, Ferrari had the better car at least 3 seasons, and equal another at least. RB equal car as well a couple of seasons. The way this is worded is strongly implying that since 2014 a lot of Hamiltons sucess is due to the new regs at the start of 2014, which is absurdGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 15:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I should start by specifing that I am on the fence here. I changed the wording notnecessarily because I thought it should be in the lead but because I thought it removed the implication and simply stated a fact. (engine changes did come at the start of this period of success).

I have no strong feelings either way but analysis of how much engine regulation changes contributed to Hamilton's success is WP:OR and should only be carried out by secondry sources.

The same argument absolutly could be applied to any car/team that had success after a major rule change but I disagree that the current wording applies that Hamilton only had the success he has had because of these changes - athough some sources would argue that he did.
SSSB (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It reads as a reason for his success. Are you really saying you cant see that? If you want it in the article, that is a different discussion, but it should not be worded the way it is in the lede. I hope others will join this discussion and we can get consensus, but if they dont then I will start a RFC. Sorry, meant to say, I will make NO changes at all to this article, I just want others opinions on it, and I appreciate your input SSSBGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 15:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk) When did Ferrari have the best car 3-4 times in the past seven years? Mercedes won 16/19 races in 2014, 16/19 races in 2015, 19/21 races in 2016, 15/21 races in 2019, and 13/16 races in 2020. Even in 2017 and 2018, where the championship fight was pretty even between Ferrari and Mercedes, Mercedes still won 12/20 races and 11/21 races respactably, although a lot of this was due to Ferrari's bad luck/Vettel spinning. So no, Mercedes definately have been the most dominant team in Formala One history, with seven constructors' championships in a row. Denying this is just attempting to skew reality. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Giant-Dwarfs: but it should not be worded the way it is in the lede. - then what wording do you propose.
SSSB (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with SSSB here. You have to be being very cynical to read the sentence in question as suggesting Hamilton only had success because of these changes. The arrival of the turbo-hybrid era certainly contributed and factually coincided with the start of Hamilton's dominating success, but by no means undermines it. —Ave (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Surely the most successful driver in the sport?

Lead says one of the most successful? Can anyone tell me the other drivers that are more, or even level with success in F1? All meaningful stats Hamilton is unmatched now he has his seventh WC, so can someone please this to most successful in the lead. "One off" implies that there are several other drivers with as many wins, championships, successes etc, when in fact there are none? MS has same WC wins, but does not match hamilton for any other stat. And no other driver, ever, in history, matches Hamilton's success, so to use these weasel words to downplay his achievements will make people wonder what is the reasoning to do this? It really needs to be changed asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:215:c500:5cc4:47c6:52b0:f21e (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Schumacher has significantly more fastest laps, so..., @Aircorn: - you made this change citing "tone down the lead". Care to comment? Because as it stands I think I stand with the IP on this one.
SSSB (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The reasoning I use when arguing against the use of anything that describes anyone as the "greatest of all time" is that it reduces success to statistics and does not allow for differences between eras. Therefore, while someone would be easily placed among the greats, the concept of "the greatest" is a meaningless abstract best left to pub arguments and tabloid newspapers. We do not have to slavishly follow them all the way to their conclusions when we describe someone successful. That applies to anyone, in any walk of life. Britmax (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Essentially per Britmax. One of the sources I read even started by saying it is pointless to compare. We are an encyclopaedia and should keep an encyclopedic and factual tone. We should not say in wikivoice anyone is the greatest, most successful or even worst for that matter. In this case it also veers too far into original research territory. Instead we list their achievements and records and attribute what others say about them. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As proven by statistics, Hamilton is factually the most successful driver in the history of the sport by holding or jointly holding almost all of the major records in Formula One. He jointly holds the record for the most World Championship titles, while he holds the all-time record for most victories, most pole positions, most podiums, most points and is only behind Schumacher on fastest laps and most races won in a single season. To describe Hamilton as the most successful driver in the history of the sport is merely stating a fact proven by statistics.McLarenMercedes22 (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

He is unlikely to overtake Fangio in terms of overall percentage wins, though. Surely that could be seen as a criterion for "most successful"? Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

By that measure Lee Wallard is the most successful driver in the history of the sport. Ultimately Hamilton either holds the record or is tied for the record in nearly every metric, and since win percentage skews so heavily towards drivers who competed in less races it's reasonable to discount it as being a fair measure of "who is the most successful". Since Hamilton and Schumacher are currently tied on seven titles, the "one of the most successful drivers in the history of the sport" wording is probably slightly more neutral, but if Hamilton wins an eighth title and claims the record outright then it would become genuinely absurd to include the "one of". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Bringing up Wallard is absurd, Fangio competed in sufficiently many races that this doesnt apply, and if you look at the stats beyond raw numbers and look at success proportional to participations you will reach the conclusion that Fangio is the most successful, this is even more obvious when you consider context. I therefore agree that stating him as the outright most successful is misleading.
SSSB (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hamilton has won a far greater number of Formula 1 races than Fangio, has a far greater number of pole positions than Fangio, has a far greater number of fastest laps than Fangio, has a far greater number of podiums than Fangio and is also ahead on World Championship titles. Fangio has a higher win percentage, but this is merely one record. Hamilton's list of records is one of the largest in the history of the sport. For now, I think it is okay to keep the "one of the most successful drivers" phrase in the article, but if Hamilton wins his 8th title and becomes the first driver ever to win 100 races and 100 pole positions next season, then it will be highly questionable to not consider him as "the most successful driver in the history of the sport" and we should in future use this phrase to accurately reflect that.McLarenMercedes22 (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Of drivers who participated in more than 10 races Fangio hold all the %records. For virtually every outright record Hamilton has Fangio has the % equivilant, so your above paragraph greatly underestimates the sports (statistical) most dominate driver.
SSSB (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just remove the "Hamilton is (one of) the most successful drivers" line and just state that he's won more races and taken more poles than anyone else, and is tied for most championships? And the Lee Wallard example isn't absurd, it's illustrative of the general problem of trying to determine who is the most successful. If you leave it as "one of the most successful" even now you're going to get a lot of people trying to change it to "the most successful", and if he does win an eighth title (before someone else does) then that will only increase. One could argue that Andrea de Cesaris was "the most successful" F1 driver if your metric for success is "convincing people to keep hiring you to drive their F1 car despite not having won any races". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, reading through the page, that part should definitely be removed. It doesn't convey any information which isn't already conveyed by the rest of the sentence it's a part of but it adds a lot of ridiculous contention over what the exact wording should be. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You actually can't compare Hamilton to Schumacher. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They were driving in two different eras with Hamilton having an easier route to the seven titles due cars having more electronics on board making it easier to race, less competition, different points system and more races. Suden13 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Except for the part where early 2000s F1 cars had a huge amount of electronic driver aids, and the part where the points system and greater number of races has no real impact on how easy it is to win the championship. It is like comparing apples and oranges, but we're not here to say whether apples or oranges are better or worse than one another, just what their respective properties are. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Look how easy DRS makes it for the drivers to pass and that wasn't introduced until 2011. Seems that nowadays it takes less and less skill to pass just because of that. Suden13 (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's try to observe WP:FORUM, please.
SSSB (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020 (2)

Post nominals should be retained in the infobox.

MBE HonFREng Grosseteste (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terasail^[✉] 01:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

Remove the title SIR from the name. SIR is only entitled to those members with a Knighthood, not an MBE like Hamilton. Jfcochon (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the sources; he's been given a knighthood alongside the MBE he got in 2008. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The article contains several references [1][2] supporting the fact that Hamilton was knighted recently. TimSmit (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC on greatest in lede

Keep or delete sentence in lede that article subject is 'greatest' in the sport. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Delete from lede as this sentence is subject of excess tagging and weasel words, as we are attempting to summarize an opinion that is not yet consensus (despite being obvious that is probably one of the greatest). This can be better evaluated in the article itself. Its already pretty obvious he is great as all his major records are also contained in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per Jtbobwaysf - Idealigic (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Remove from lead - His results speak for themselves. Evaluations of his talents by commentators can go further down into the body of the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or at least rewrite. I don't think we need it as we have a list of accomplishments that speaks for itself and this is always going to have a degree of subjectivity no matter the sportsman (as demonstrated in the #Edit request: Surely the most successful driver in the sport? discussion above). If we do keep it we need to better reflect the sources. AIRcorn (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not overly swung one way or the other. Given that there is a good level of detail on who has said what with regards to his ability/status/achievements in the body, which arguably cannot be summarised succinctly in the lead without misrepresenting the sources or adding undue weight to one particular view. If anything were to stay, perhaps the suggestion by some specified individuals that he is the greatest of all time, as this would render the 'one of the greatest' half of the sentence in question redundant as surely that goes without saying if the former is even being suggested. —Ave (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include. Reliable secondary sources support this statement, and it is more meaningful to the average reader than trying to assess how strong his achievements were. The excessive notes on the line are definitely a problem. William Shakespeare article has the line "widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's greatest dramatist" and gives three citations to expert sources. I think we should do the same with this article - pick the strongest sources, scrap the rest, and note that Hamilton is widely viewed as one of the greatest racing drivers ever. Awoma (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - the lead has the factual accomplishments, this judgemental adjective seems just a bit of excess and to be stating opinion as if fact. It is not a major part of the article so doesn’t seem needed by WP:LEAD, most sources do not at this time seem to include such a remark so it doesn’t seem required as WP:DUE, nor is there a particularly prominent hall of fame equivalent this comes from as a matter of fact so it doesn’t seem appropriate WP:BLPSTYLE to highlight an enthusiasm. I don’t doubt there are afficianado debates in this and other sports over who is the ‘greatest’ and why, but it seems a bit much to put into lead. I’d suggest trying to stay closer to restrained and factual. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Remove from lede; comments from commentators should be in the section about what comments commentators had to comment on. Maybe it could say something like Some journalists, experts and fellow drivers have described him as the greatest of all time but just saying in Wikivoice that he's "the greatest" seems absurd to me. jp×g 17:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, for example, all have some form of "one of the greatest" in their leads. I think we should keep the "Hamilton is regarded as one of the greatest Formula One drivers in history,[note 2]" but remove the second part ("with some journalists, experts and fellow drivers describing him as the greatest of all time.[note 3]"). And the "greatest" sentence can be joined with the second sentence to say "Regarded as one of the greatest Formula One drivers in history, Hamilton has won a joint-record seven World Drivers' Championship titles...". Some1 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I looked at those other articles you linked to as OSE and none of them have this type of promotional greatest of all time, and all of them summarize accomplishments (as we do in the lede). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per above. ~ HAL333 22:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete and Replace. "Greatest" is such a screamingly subjective judgment that, in many cases, even commentators-pundits avoid it. Shades of Tony the Tiger for those of us who grew up in England during the 1960s: Grrrr and soooooo much added sugar. And wikipedia fancies its chances not as an alternative to an English tabloid newspaper, but as an alternative encyclopedia! But .... maybe "one of the most successful" squeezes under the wire of "encyclopedic". I'm not sure I'm convinced even about that, but if folks are looking for a wiki-compromise .... And be well. Charles01 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - let his records speak for themselves in the lead and cover these plaudits for the main body (as it already is). I am opposed to stateing "most successful" as it is just as subjective as "greatest". How do you measure success? Hamilton may have most outright records but he falls well short on the successful scale when you start to consider ratio's (win to start ratio etc.) and falls even further back when you consider histroical context. The problems with calling his "greatest" are the same as those calling him the "most successful".
  SSSB (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include Can anyone list any other driver that is equally as successful? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 14:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

INCLUDE With 7 titles, it's almost an affront to not include

Discussion

• Just for clarification is this RFC looking at deleting the whole Hamilton is regarded as one of the greatest drivers in the history of the sport, with some journalists, experts and fellow drivers describing him as the greatest of all time. sentence? AIRcorn (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

One would assume so. It's contentious material (even if most of the contention is highly pedantic) which unless someone can find a better way of presenting it probably belongs outside of the lead. Simply listing off his accomplishments would likely serve the same purpose without leading to edit warring and ridiculous arguments on the talk page. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• There is some cite overkill for describing Hamilton as the greatest but they could bear some closer examination AIRcorn (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • An autosport article that lists him as the 17th greatest as voted by his peers [3]
  • A F1 grandprix web ranking that has him at 7, 5, 8, 9, 9, and 4 in different stats [4]
  • A Time piece that describes him as the greatest race-car driver of this generation [5]
  • A telegraph article titled Nico Rosberg: Taking title from Lewis Hamilton is a phenomenal feeling. Behind paywall so someone else will have to look at it. [6]
  • BBC sport article where Alonza has him in the top 5. [7]
  • A Formular1.com that talks about his greatness. [8]
  • A BBC sport video that doesn't seem to work for me. [9]
  • A Guardian opinion piece that starts off with It is impossible to compare drivers across different eras of motor racing, they can only really be judged as of their time..[10]

The Time article is probably the best. As a whole from this list we could probably only go as far as saying he has been called the greatest F1 driver of his generation. AIRcorn (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This kind of a spamlist seems a counter-indicator to me — couldn’t do better than this ? A single cite of prominence commonly used as a standard would be useful but a bunch is weaker and this just looks like unexamined grab from a google — the Telegraph doesn’t seem related, several have him lower down, and opinion pieces shouldn’t be used. I don’t think the label suitable, but seems like stronger cites for it should exist and have been used. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• The sources for with some journalists, experts and fellow drivers describing him as the greatest of all time seem alright. There are four listed (one with three opinions). They are all opinion pieces so need attribution in the body. Not sure experts is needed as they are all journalists or drivers. AIRcorn (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• This feels like a scenario where it would be possible to cite experts all day long saying "Lewis Hamilton is (one of) the best driver(s) (of his generation/who has ever raced/of the past 50 years/etc.)" and that content like that should go in some separate section called appraisal of talent by commentators or something to that effect. By this point there have to be at the very least hundreds of potential references which all say something along those lines. Right now it feels too much like the article is trying to convince the reader that Lewis Hamilton is an incredibly talented driver when it can just tell the reader about his achievements and let them work out that he's an incredibly talented driver by themselves. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, at wikipedia we follow, we dont lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Some1: what source/s would you use to say "Regarded as one of the greatest Formula One drivers in history". So far the sources presented only talk about this as being "in his generation". AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  Then we could say "in his generation" instead of "in history", or remove "in history"/"in his generation" altogether. Some1 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• I originally wanted to keep myself out of this but how about this variation of the orginal sentence: "Hamilton is regarded as perhaps one of the greatest drivers of his generation or maybe even in the history of the sport, with some journalists, experts and fellow drivers even describing him as the greatest of all time.". However I do recognise that if so many words like maybe and perhaps are added, we are inevatibly running into a relevancy issue, where the argument could be made that it doesn't belong in the lede, since his reception by experts and fellow participants of the sport (drivers, team owner etc.) is covered in great detail in the "Reception" section. On the other hand I don't really think it's that big of a deal and I am afraid that some people (I am not pointing any fingures specifically at anyone) may simply be offended by the mere notion that he may be one of the greatest if not THE greatest of all time.

This comes from a person who thinks that any discussion about who is "the greatest of all time" is completely nonsensical because there are to many variables involved and it's therefore impossible to come to a real conclusion that is immune to substantial and critical scrtutiny.

Nevertheless I feel like that just simply mentioning what others have said about someone is relatively non-contentious but that isn't the point of this discussion, right. Wether or not the information belongs in the lede and wether or not the sentence accurately depicts Hamiltons reception at hand that's the question. I hope everybody involved has adequately consulted himself as to wether he*she is argueing objectively and not because of a subjectiv disapproval of the concept of the "greatest of all time" or let alone for hamilton himself. To clearify, I am not pointing fingures at anyone specifically, I am just painfully aware baed on my own esperience that this can be a very emotional issue for some and that Lewis Hamilton himself can be a controversial figure form some. Sausius (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Giant-Dwarfs: - to awnser your question above, that depends on how you define success.
  SSSB (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SSSB: - This is not meant to sound snide, but I think that is obvious in this case, and in most cases involving sports that have a winner. In this case Hamilton has been massively more successful than any other driver by race wins, championships, poles, podiums, points won etc. These are easy to check in this case, and are just facts. In the history of F1, without any doubt, Hamilton has been the most successful. If another driver had shorter careers that is of no relevance at all. If other drivers had poorer cars (in some peoples opinions) that does not matter either. If a team has less resources it does not matter. This is a competition that all participants know the rules of before they enter, and the results are easy to find. If you win more than the others that means you are more successfulGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 15:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• But when I consider how great someone is I consider ratios, not just raw numbers.
  SSSB (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Since we have decided to delete sentences from this article such as "Hamilton is regarded as one of the greatest drivers in history, and considered by some to be the greatest of all time", I should point out that these sort of sentences are also found in articles of pretty much every other driver in Formula 1 who has won multiple World Championships. To maintain a level of consistency, I would advise one of you to remove these types of sentences from those articles too, because it would look silly if for example the Senna article and Schumacher article had a sentence which declared them to be one of the greatest, yet the Hamilton article does not. McLarenMercedes22 (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Greyjoy ^talk 09:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, if I decide to remove those sentences from those articles, it will almost inevitably lead to the same debate that we have been having on this page. Someone with higher authority should do it. McLarenMercedes22 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

McLarenMercedes22, all editors have the same 'authority' as far as editing articles is concerned. There should be no difference in weight given to your edits than to those made by any other editor. Just make it clear, in the edit summary, the reason for any changes you make, and go to the talk page rather than edit-warring if your changes are challenged. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know, as we have agreed that "widely regarded as one of the greatest/the greatest" sentences should be removed from articles of successful Formula One drivers because those types of sentences are opinions/puffery and Wikipedia should strive to be as neutral as possible, there seems to be disagreements on the Ayrton Senna article. One editor seems to be persistent in stating that Senna is widely regarded as "the greatest" Formula One driver, not even bothering to state "one of." I have made a compromise by adding in the "one of" statement, but I will need more of you to step in here, to make sure that this sentence is removed from all articles of successful drivers, as we have agreed here. McLarenMercedes22 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Same sort of wording appears in Mika Häkkinen's article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Same sort of wording in the Fangio, Stewart, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell etc articles. For the sake of consistency, they should all now be removed. Either they all should be removed, or they should all stay. No exceptions. Koppite1 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

some suggestions for the award section

besides 2014 also won PAP European Sportsman of the Year in 2019, source: https://sport.tvp.pl/45942730/62-ankieta-pap-lewis-hamilton-najlepszym-sportowcem-swiata Gazzetta World Sportsman of the Year in 2018 and 2020, source: https://www.gazzetta.it/Sport-Vari/30-12-2018/gazzetta-referendum-migliori-2018-3101679071061.shtml and https://www.gazzetta.it/Nba/30-12-2020/referendum-gazzetta-hamilton-brignone-bayern-monaco-migliori-mondo-2020-3902076189623.shtml?cmpid=shortener_6070fa73Vu L'Équipe Champion of Champions in 2020 https://www.lequipe.fr/Tous-sports/Actualites/-l-equipe-designe-lewis-hamilton-et-marte-olsbu-roeiseland-comme-ses-champions-des-champions-monde-2020/1209723 SJA British Sports Award 2007 and 2020 https://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/sja-sport-awards/2007-sja-sports-awards/ https://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/awards-news/hamilton-doyle-and-liverpool-fc-big-winners-at-sja-british-sports-awards/

can probably also add FIA Personality of the Year to the Formula One undersection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Prize_Giving_Ceremony#Personality_of_the_Year Noula1994 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Too many awards for me to go through all of them check if they are really worthy of mention (prima facie, they probably aren't). Maybe the 2020 FIA award could be added, as it at least seems to be more than an accolade by a news organisation... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there's a strong argument for creating a separate list detailing all of Hamilton's honours and achievements while limiting his main biography to just detailing the most notable ones, since it's otherwise not really clear where a lot of these things fall on a scale between "knighthood" and "Blue Peter badge". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that a Blue Peter Badge shouldn't make the cut ..., we really need to draw a line to avoid half a page of obsure awards.
SSSB (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That was my point. Where the line between the two falls is unclear, but having a separate comprehensive list which could potentially include even relatively minor awards while being highly selective on the main biographic article would seem like a fair compromise. Since he's a British driver I would probably mention the BBC SPOTY's in the main biography, but otherwise a lot of them are best left elsewhere. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I reckon the very minor awards (i.e. "Blue Peter badges", as mentioned above) could be left out altogether (hence why I refused the request): if someone wishes to make a separate list (with at least some minimally stringent requirements) then no objections to that. Including the most significant non-sporting ones (since the racing is already well covered) with some mention in article text (if that's not done already) is not a bad idea. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

In February 2021, Hamilton signed a contractt to continue racing for the team in 2021

Change "contractt" to "contract" 86.5.141.62 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done, good spot. IronManCap (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting article change to make it clear that he does not and has not lived in the UK for many years and is a resident of Monaco.

Share thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.251.15 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is made abundently clear in the residence section. I don't really see how any additional clarification on the subject is justified or necessary.
SSSB (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the IP hasn't read the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Its abundantly clear to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.213.138.12 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

Change Wins to 101 SRGeorge (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Add: Rivalries with Sebastian Vettel (Title Battle 2017/18), and Max Verstappen (Title Battle 2021)

Suggested inclusion of sections regarding the rivalries with Vettel and Verstappen in addition to Alonso and Rosberg already detailed. Vettel battle '17 & '18 in particular was as great if not greater than Alonso and arguably Rosberg rivalry.

198.28.92.5 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, see below. 41.58.243.40 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Change # of wins from 102 to 103 following his victory at the 2021 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix 2601:145:4280:B2F0:FC94:AA86:92F2:DB9C (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done (The template which populates the "Wins" field in the infobox has been updated.) DH85868993 (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

And here is a source for the value. DH85868993 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

Add KBE to his honours with his MBE, he received his knighthood today 173.179.177.71 (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  melecie  t - 10:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Hamilton–Verstappen rivalry" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hamilton–Verstappen rivalry. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 16#Hamilton–Verstappen rivalry until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SSSB (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be recouped. Especially in light of events. 41.58.243.40 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

No, like a few biographical articles this whole section needs to be rewritten by someone who remembers what the word "biography" actually means. Britmax (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

Source 26 is linked to the statement he was expelled from school due to being mistakenly identified. This source does not corroborate this statement therefore is not a relevant source for this information and should be removed as a reference to this statement. 81.111.109.120 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I've reviewed the source and I'd disagree with your assessment. A direct quote from source 26 is:

(Lewis himself was excluded after a fellow pupil was attacked and needed hospital treatment, only to be reinstated when it was determined that he was wrongly identified and not involved)

I would observe that such a statement sufficiently shows that the school believed he was an assailant, and thus the statement he was mistakenly identified as having attacked a fellow student seems to be justified. —Sirdog (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

Add KBE to his honours with his MBE, he received his knighthood today 173.179.177.71 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

His knighthood is recorded on the page in the usual way as far as I can see. Btljs (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The last win of Hamilton

He did not win and that has been said by his own team max won not so fair but he did so except that please change this

Best regards McLarens number one fan 41.223.182.110 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of the article you're talking about. But I checked the results table, the infobox and the achivements section and I can't see where the supposed problem is. SSSB (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The last win in the infobox is the 2021 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, which is indeed the last win Lewis has had so far. Are you confusing this with the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix? Britmax (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

First Black Formula One driver

Hi there... Seen the wikipage on Lewis Hamilton and maybe I'm missing something or have it wrong. Was the first black Formula one driver not Willy T Ribbs around the time Sir Lewis Hamilton was born in 1985. Think he was in a Brabham team under the lead of Bernie Ecklestone? Kind Regards Edeetlefs (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

He tested a Formula One car. Most definitions require you to take part in a competitive/official session to be considered a "Formula One driver". SSSB (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The article only ever says that Hamilton was "the first black driver to race in Formula One". —Ave (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted and thank you. In that context and assuming the person consuming the content has some experience or foundation in the FIA managed sport, it is absolutely understandable. Some might claim the adjecture of "racing" could constitute many forms. Racing against the clock, against teammates,etc. In lieu of getting into a race car could illicit the assumption that some form racing will be done. Competing in an F1 season might allow room for Mr Willie T Ribbs accomplishments. F1 Test Drivers is a crucial cog in any team F1 team as playing an active part in that competitive team's efforts in a season. Also during an era with arguably worse social acceptance of any person out of the indoctrinated norm society set. The latter is probably debatable as no measured methodology can quantify discrimination between different periods. It remains still today in many forms. But that is a lengthy discussion not suited to be done here. I am just wary that the stance semi shuts the door on Mr Willie T Ribbs history and I do believe they are both pioneers in their own rights. I again thank you for your response. I too learned something and for that I am respectfully grateful. Maybe I should change my handle to "Pedantic Semantic"... :-) Hoping you have a great day and week ahead!! Edeetlefs (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points. I'm almost certain that there used to be a refnote in the lead immediately after the "first black driver to race in Formula One" sentence which makes reference to Mr Ribbs and clarifies that, of the two, only Hamilton qualified for and raced in Grands Prix. I do wonder if this should be reinstated, not just for clarity, but also to give Mr Ribbs' achievement during, as you point out, a very different era, the appropriate amount of recognition. —Ave (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Reception" section neutrality (edit:solved)

I have tagged "reception" under "Driver profile". Criticism Hamilton has faced for his driving hasn't been included. It's only full of praise and there is absolutely no criticism. The neutrality of this section goes against the rules completely. For example, look at the "Public image and reception" section in Max Verstappen's Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Verstappen#Public_image_and_reception . Look at the criticism. That's how it should be. Here, there's no criticism. As it currently stands, this hugely expanded section is simply a very thinly disguised hagiography. Repetitious quotes from different talking heads have been used to construct a section that is so POV as to be laughable. Sure, Hamilton has his fans, but there has also been a very significant and extensive argument in the media since Hamilton joined the sport, highlighting his negative traits and behaviors. The problem is that all the high praise has been included but the criticism Hamilton has faced has been completely ignored; therefore this section is entirely out of step with the way that Hamilton's driving has been discussed in reliable sources over the years. Negative parts need to be added and given due weight with similar contextual emphasis. The criticism under the "media reception" section is all about his life outside of F1, and not related to his driving in Formula One. Why isn't there a reasonable amount and a detailed account in this entire article of the criticism Hamilton has faced for his driving except just TWO tiny sentences? ("Earlier in his career, Hamilton was criticised for being hot-headed at times, as demonstrated when he was disqualified in Imola in the GP2 Series for overtaking the safety car, something he went on to repeat four years later in Formula One at the 2010 European Grand Prix in Valencia.")

 F1V8V10V6!  00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note, the whole contribution above has the tag of "00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)", but was edited multiple times over 15th and 16th January 2022 in contravention of talkpage guidelines. See edit history for clarity. Mark83 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there isn't a full analysis of all aspects of his F1 career. But you could, you know, fix it? Mark83 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC) & edited Mark83 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You're getting pretty carried away there. First, you say there's "no criticism", describing it as a "hagiography"; then, you go on to recite the criticism included. Either way, the neutrality rules concern the success of an article or section in accurately representing the reliable sources available, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, without distortion from tone or overly opinionated writing. You haven't really demonstrated how there is "no neutrality in the reception section", and neutrality is not at issue merely where an article has minimal criticism of a subject. Can you give any specific examples of sentences in the section which do not adhere to WP:NPOV? Can you provide a selection of reliable sources containing information or reporting on a perhaps critical viewpoint currently omitted from the article that should be included?

Notwithstanding the above, I don't think any comparison to another drivers' article, such as the one you make with Max Verstappen, is useful or relevant when discussing WP:NPOV in this article. They are different articles on different drivers, and require bespoke write-ups using the different sets of reliable sources available. Even if we were to compare the two articles as you have, it hardly supports your argument. The relevant section to which you refer appears to contain, almost exclusively, quotes of praise about Verstappen, save for one brief paragraph of criticism concerning one race (the 2021 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix). —Ave (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes. The funny thing is, regarding your last point, there was a huge paragraph of criticism on Verstappen's page, however, Mark83 (user above) trimmed it down a lot. Even though my reasoning was flawed (comparing one article to another), my original post here doesn't make sense anymore, so go ahead and remove the neutrality POV tags from the "reception" section.  F1V8V10V6!  22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This is potentially misleading. I was trimming a huge quote which constituted most of the section (i.e. inappropriately large). This is my edit The only thing of substance I removed was He's been playing the game given that, with his points advantage, Hamilton simply can't afford to have an accident with him and lose an opportunity to reduce the points deficit. because that was very 2021-specific. I left all the substantive comments and trimmed some fluff. Mark83 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) ; edited 06:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have removed the tags yourself. To be clear, my two questions above (asking whether you can give any specific examples and/or provide reliable sources demonstrating an omitted point of view) were asked sincerely. My main point was only that, if you believe there to be a WP:NPOV issue, those questions need to be answered for work to begin to resolve such an issue and improve the article. —Ave (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you want me to do?  F1V8V10V6!  01:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I neither want nor expect you to do anything. My responses were not intended to dismiss the possibility of there being a neutrality issue, only to point out that the case you made wasn't particularly compelling. I was only suggesting a pretty bulletproof way of demonstrating non-adherence to WP:NPOV. If you can provide robust answers to those two questions ((a) "Can you give any specific examples of sentences in the section which do not adhere to WP:NPOV?, and (b) Can you provide a selection of reliable sources containing information or reporting on a perhaps critical viewpoint currently omitted from the article that should be included?"), then it should be (1) clear that there is such an issue, and (2) clear how the issue can be resolved. —Ave (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"If you can provide robust answers to those two questions"

I can't. My initial post was wrong. I agree that there aren't any neutrality issues with this article. That's why I removed the POV tags.  F1V8V10V6!  11:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I wasn't requesting that you answer those questions now—I could see that you no longer wished to pursue your line of argument—I was only offering some hopefully useful advice for similar discussions in future. —Ave (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Need to talk about his crazy brazil drive in 2021 that is considered as one of the greatest drive of Lewis from 20 to 5 in sprint race and from 10 to one in the sunday race day. Willyisurmomhahaha123 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

New main photo

The main photo of Lewis is from 2016, why not update it? 109.240.91.249 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Because the recent ones are low-resolution files. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Considered one of the greatest

I have said that he is often considered one of the best which is not subjective as its not stating an opinion, its stating that people have this opinion. I don't understand why FizzieHey keeps changing it. Not a Lewis fan I assume... AtishT20 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

He keeps removing it because of this rather conclusive RfC. SSSB (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@AtishT20: I don't understand why you've ignored consensus established on this talk page, which I've very clearly mentioned in the edit summary. I recommend reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and Wikipedia:Consensus to avoid getting into an edit war over this (and other topics in the future). I'm not going to re-revert and get into an edit war myself, but you should establish new consensus before trying to override very clear existing consensus on the matter. FozzieHey (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Material where the subject was the source

I have deleted two details where the subject was the source; both were included in citations where the reference took the form of an intereview with the subject. There are more examples in this article, but the deleted material - including a 5 year old taking up karate to defend himself against bullies - lends an unquestioning orgin-story dimension to an otherwise heavily managed article. I do not doubt for a moment that the subject has been subjected to racism, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 08:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: I'm confused. Why does the fact that this in an interview mean that it shouldn't be included. To me, it seems like perfectly valid information about his childhood. SSSB (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @SSSB. WP:Verify first and foremost. The subject says in a published interview that he took up Karate over 30 years ago, aged 5, to defend himself from bullies. The interview is included in a publication which would normally be accepted as a good source because articles will be checked with a second source. In a case where a celebrity talks about their childhood, no such check is likely to have been made and so the claim is not verified. Celebrities routinely make all sorts of things up when talking about their lives and childhoods. Using the same citation source, it might be acceptable to include the detail using the formulation; "Hamilton has claimed he took up Karate aged 5....etc". Emmentalist (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: if anything the complete opposite is true. The fact that the subject said it about himself means that WP:VERIFY is undoubtedly satisfied. We don't remove content because we suspect the subject of the article of lying about their life, unless there is actually a basis for such an accusation (it's contradictory or they lied in the past). I.e. unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, Hamilton is a reliable source about himself. SSSB (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @SSSB, I diametrically disagree. Telling a journalist something which is unverified is exactly the same as putting it into a blog yourself, or indeed into a book. The subject remains the source and the supposed fact is entirely unverified. Company origin stories, and indeed celebrities stories of their early lives, are routinely inaccurate. People's own memories fail, too. Research shows even good-faith witnesses are frequently wrong. Information put out by anyone about themselves should be verified by another citation if they are to be included in a Wikpedia article as fact. Alternatively, as I say, it should be phrased as a claim by the individual. IMHO. Emmentalist (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, an autobiography is a reliable source and can be used on Wikipedia. Hamilton's word is a reliable source, whether his word is communicated in interview, written, or video format. As for "it should be phrased as a claim by the individual." that is only acceptable if we go along the lines of "In [year/interview etc.] Hamilton stated that..." It is also completely unnecessary - if Hamilton says something about himself, this is verification. SSSB (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @SSSB All I can say, genuinely in the nicest way possible, is the idea that if a famous person says something about themselves then Wikipedia should report it as fact without further verification seems patently unworkable. It would be an invitation for PR folks - who brief famous people on what to say to convey a particular impression or image through the media - to fill Wikipedia with nonsense PR. Emmentalist (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You just described exactly what PR agents do. Try to promote their clients using PR dribble. I dare say some agencies operate accounts. Wikipedia has policies on non-independent sources (this was reported by an independent source, so those policies don't apply here) and content which is promotional in nature and neutrality, but I see no evidence that any of these policies is violated.

If we were sourcing Hamilton directly, I might be more sympathetic towards your arguement. But if a reliable secondary source can find no reason to doubt it's accuracy, there is no basis for us doing so - because any neutral source (which the citation is) should point out (explicitly or implicitly) if there is any reason to doubt the claim. SSSB (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, @SSSB I see the interview is beyond a paywall. Have you had a chance to take a look? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I have read it. SSSB (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Brazilian citizen

Lewis has became a Brazilian citizen, change to "British-Brazilian" https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12630982/lewis-hamilton-made-honorary-citizen-of-brazil-after-congress-vote-passes-bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:36d:1201:585:349d:f601:a624:2a59 (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. Being made an honorary citizen isn't enough to change nationality in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You're confusing citizenship and nationality. He doesn't have Brazilian nationality (honourary or otherwise) and therefore "British-Brazilian" or "Brazilian-British" is just plain wrong. SSSB (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - Other Ventures - Jadu hoverboard & web3 inclusion

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to find independent reliable sources for this. Forbes Contributors are not reliable sources, per WP:FORBESCON. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

Please remove the title “sir” from Lewis Hamilton. He’s an MBE, not knighted. 2603:8081:6804:A20E:D8AB:6F4C:D023:6F33 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: He has both the MBE and the Knighthood. Removing this is incorrect. MadGuy7023 (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Cat

Please add Category:Vegan sportspeople 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0E3:1DE9:D889:BF35 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done it is sourced within the article. SSSB (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. (Had thought that was obvious).--2603:7000:2143:8500:655F:127C:AAB4:6837 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Not the only black driver

Lewis Hamilton is not anymore the only black driver to have driven in F1. Pascal Wehrlein drove in the series for couple years. 2001:14BA:4E6:F400:B5B5:44E0:FD0:53B (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wehrlein isn't black. SSSB (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

He is, he's of Mauritian descent. --2A01:36D:1201:A00:80C6:DFD3:BDE2:F241 (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make him black by default. Find a source that supports the idea that Wehrlien is black, then we can make the changes. SSSB (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In USA he would had been classified as Black due to the One-drop rule Zw0n1m1r (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Pascal Wehrlein isn't American, so that's not particular relevant by itself. There is also no proof that he has any black ancestory (at least on his Wikipedia article), only about 28% of mauritians are desendants of Africans. So I'm not convinced that's the case. SSSB (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

He is of mixed race and in a time of racial problems we should be 100% correct in all things published. Neither black nor white, mixed race. 80.7.45.246 (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - Title of "Sir"

This has been requested by someone else, and denied for some reason. The title "Sir" needs to be removed in all uses from this page. Per the Wikipedia page on the Order of the British Empire, "The senior two ranks of Knight or Dame Grand Cross, and Knight or Dame Commander, entitle their members to use the title of Sir for men and Dame for women before their forename."

Mr. Hamilton doesn't have a KBE or a GBE. He has an MBE. Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. He has been knighted as a member, but that doesn't make him a Knight of the Order. "MBE" may be be used as a suffix of his name, but he isn't entitled or allowed to use the title "Sir". SaintHadrian (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

He is entitled to the prefix Sir because of the award of the rank Knight Bachelor in 2020. Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

He was named as a Knight Bachelor in the Queen's Honours List in December 2020 after winning his seventh F1 championship. He received the knighthood from the then Prince of Wales on 15th December 2021. He is therefore Sir Lewis Hamilton. The article is correct as it stands. The denial of the edit request from an anonymous user was correct. Prh47bridge (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

8xs champion

Despite the FIA rulings, it's clear in the real world and according to the actual rules Lewis is an 8x champion. This should be reflected on the page 86.12.79.13 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Please give a “real world” reliable source that says he is an eight time WDC. Mark83 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It isn't even certain that he would have won the final race if it had been run according to the rules. If the lapped cars had been left in place, it is possible they would have jumped out of the way quickly enough to allow Verstappen to catch and pass Hamilton. In any event, in any sport, the referee's decision is final. We don't change the outcome just because the referee (in this case the race director) got it wrong. Yes, it is likely Hamilton would have won the championship if the race had been run in accordance with the rules. Yes, this and Red Bull's breach of the cost cap undermine the credibility of the 2021 championship. But, unless the FIA decide to deduct points retrospectively, which now seems highly unlikely, the records will always show that Verstappen won the 2021 WDC, not Hamilton. The article is therefore correct that Hamilton is a 7x world champion. --Prh47bridge (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Brazilian Citizen, Should Be Added On Nationality's

He Is A Brazilian National Since Nov 7th 2022, That Should Be Added Into His Profile . 86.76.170.64 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022 (2)

- !1995 142.201.8.180 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022 (3)

- !1995 Pinkman98 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022

Change citizenship to British and Brazilian.

164.10.46.63 (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The citizenship is honorary. I agree that the article should be updated to reflect that he received the title of Honorary Brazilian on November 7th, 2022 (another link for the fact: https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/now-im-one-you-hamilton-tells-brazil-he-becomes-honorary-citizen-2022-11-07/), but to change his citizenship on this ground have, AFAIK, no legal base. Vinnycordeiro (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

To add brazilian nationality to his nationality as: Brazilian (honorary citizenship) 2803:2A00:7:FEF3:C1B:59C4:2E83:3B83 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: As vinnzcordeiro mentioned above, his nationality is not Brazilian. An honorary citizenship would belong with awards or personal life, depending on the flow of the article, but it is not a nationality in the strict sense. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

To add the brazilian citizenship of Lewis Hamilton Francesco Ferrari Bravo (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2022

Next to 2022 position it says 5th (240pt) but this should be changed to 6th; Carlos Sainz finished 5th 2A02:A443:9E95:1:E1AC:D040:E142:A58 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Y Fixed. Thanks for pointing out the error. DH85868993 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

To add Max Verstappen to the Rivalries category. I think it would be a worthwhile addition considering the incredible season they both had in 2021. They also have some resentment towards each other as far as I can tell by quotes both have said in 2022. exampleexample 2 Jamlad8 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor change re: biographical detail

I had a constructive exchange a year or so ago here about the status of biographical detail provided by subjects themselves. I have now learned more about Wikipedia policies and have revisited to re-make the change I made a year ago (and which was reverted at the time). It seems a trivial point but it has potentially considerable read-across to other cases. The article said as a matter of fact that the subject took up karate aged 5 to deal with school bullies. I do not suggest that the subject was being disingenuous about his memories of childhood in any way, but the notion looked more to me like part of an interesting origin story rather than something which should be reported as fact. Origin stories, complete with unusual details of childhood occurences, are standard in the PR and media worlds. My understanding of WP:Interviews is now that such details recounted by a subject to a journalist should be treated as a primary and non-independent source. I have therefore altered "He took up karate aged 5, etc" to "He has said....".Emmentalist (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: my last. the other part of the discussion I mentioned above was at Teahouse At the Teahouse discussion, it was pointed out to me that WP:Interview suggests using biographical detail provided to a journalist sparingly to, for example, confirm whether a person is LGBTQI+. I agree that this would be entirely appropriate since this constitutes a primary source asserting something about themselves which only they can confirm. Moreover, it seems reasonable that a self-report by a subject to a journalist that they attended a particualar university, say, can normally be taken at face value. The claim that in childhood karate was used aged 5 to deal with bullies is, however, a different matter. It is, at root, rather implausible and lends itself to a strong possibility that it may not be entirely true. This is not to suggest in any way that the subject is deliberately failing to truth-tell, but rather simply to note that memories from childhood are often not what they seem to the adult. There are many examples on Wikipedia, however, where celebrities have made claims which appear unverified at best and deliberately untrue at worst, yet are presented as fact in their Wikipedia article. Ideally, such articles should be amended. For this reason, it is important that unverifiable and non-independent claims are qualified in the way I have done at this article.Emmentalist (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: Here is the part of the discussion which was originally at this page. Per standard Wikipedia practice, the discussion was archived once discussion had ceased for a specified period. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this @DH85868993. It's great to learn about the Wikipedia processes. I'll insert that into my comments above. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

External Links

I've noticed something strange in the external links section in that there is a biography linked to a page on the McLaren team website, a team Hamilton hasn't driven for in about a decade (feel old yet?). A bit more digging reveals the link was added in 2006 and left substantially unaltered since, even slipping through a Good Article listing in 2018. It's not made any better by the fact that @InternetArchiveBot "rescued" the link in 2018 to point to a version from 2010, despite the fact that ideally there should be no need to archive a live external link.

In short, the link is redundant and I've replaced it with the equivalent link at the Mercedes team website, but I'm left thinking that nearly a decade is a long time for any link on such a prominent page to become irrelevant. A discussion for elsewhere, but I'm sure a bit of standardisation of links in notable driver's pages wouldn't hurt, as this issue can be found on other driver pages. I would probably suggest something along the lines of 1) an official website 2) the DriverDB profile and 3) the current team profile, and don't really see the need for more outside this, unless they're notable for other works such as the IMDb link here. FJones2123 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Continuing this, I have opened a wider discussion in the F1 WikiProject talk page. FJones2123 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Considering as a G.O.A.T

It seems some editors have done various edits recently regarding some G.O.A.T claims. I think we should discuss and come to a clear conclusion before changing anything in the article. I don't have any problem with that claim being in this article, as we already know various publications, media, fans and etc have claimed Hamilton as the/a G.O.A.T and/or most successful driver in F1 history.

Wikipedia articles like Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo includes such claims and editors have agreed to that conclusion. Why can't we? 45.121.91.185 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

GOAT is a subjective term, not an objective term. It should be deleted from Messi and Ronaldo, not spread to other articles. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree; see the below extract from the policy you linked:

Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers. (WP:SUBJECTIVE)

In this instance I think it could be appropriately written that he has been described as one of the greatest F1 drivers ever, quoting authoritative, prominent experts and publications. Mark83 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with "one of the greatest" but the topic specifically states "GOAT". Those are two different arguments and you are not disagreeing with me. --Falcadore (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Your response above (16:01, 2 January 2023) suggests you were opposed. The clarification that you do not object to "one of the greatest" (or similar language) is helpful.

Just noting that the heading is "Considering as a G.O.A.T" (emphasis added) and the IP user also suggests "a" greatest in their post above. Mark83 (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that it is not a narrow list of candidates. There are half a dozen Formula One World Champions with legitimate claims, and that assumes the World Sportscar Championship and all the other racing competitions having nothing to contribute. And it's not Wikipedia's place to participate in, or even encourage that debate.

Any line put more strongly than "Hamilton is considered by some to be greatest", with at least two citations has no place in Wikipedia. It certainly should not have any emphasis. This sort of fanboy praise is something that devalues Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh totally agree that this is a line that is difficult to tread (and needs to be policed that it isn't a slippery slope into fanboy-ism). Further agree with your suggested wording (and nothing stronger). Mark83 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mark83 I saw this discussion. What I meant from "Statistically the most successful driver" wasn't the "G.O.A.T" or anything related to fanboy-ism. "Statistically" is a different word with a different meaning, as we all know Hamilton is statistically the most successful driver in F1, so why we cannot add that? If the reason is the lack of sources, we could find them too. Gaayhan (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth would you feel the need to ask that question? My edit summary was clear, of course it was the lack of soruces. And just as a general rule, you cannot add information without a reliable source. I get the distinction you are making about G.O.A.T. but that's irrelevant - it's the lack of clarity and lack of sources that is the problem here.Mark83 (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

And yes "we" can all find them - but why would you expect others to clean up after you. Mark83 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So if I provided some reliable sources, we do can add that term into the article right? Are we clear? I didn't expect anyone to clean up after me. Gaayhan (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I would not add this term. There is not such thing as a G.O.A.T. Either you are the greatest or you aren't. There cannot be multiple greatests(my spelling checker even flagged this word as nonexistent) in one sport. Moreover, we're talking about a sport determined by the quality of machinery a driver gets. This sport is at just over 70 years still rather young and developing and Hamilton was the first driver that had the honor to drive machinery that dominant in regimen of 20+ races per season worth 25 or 26 points per win. That's why all the statistics are skewed to him. He was literally the first person to get the opportunity to score such an amount of good results in such a narrow timeframe. Tvx1 01:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s not for me alone to approve. And I think if you’re going to add it back in (with reliable sources) you need to elaborate. For example you need to acknowledge the change in the points system and increased rounds per season being factors. Mark83 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lewis changed his name to include his mother's name

Change 'Sir Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton MBE HonFREng' to 'Sir Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton-Larbalestier MBE HonFREng' Badoombalakaka (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm not sure if he's changed his name yet, but you're welcome to re-open the request if you have a source that says he has. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If memory serves (and to be fair, it rarely does) Hamilton intends to add Larbalestier as a middle name, not change his surname to a double-barrell. SSSB (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"Dawn Apollo Films" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dawn Apollo Films has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 5 § Dawn Apollo Films until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 19:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent Driver Picture?

Just pure curiosity. Isn't there a more recent picture of Hamilton than the one currently displayed? Was the last one from last year not in compliance or something? 2A02:587:2113:7100:D42E:79D:9C7E:2544 (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)