Talk:Lewis Hamilton

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024 and more

Second sentence of article should start with he, not Hamilton. And why is the infobox image the Mercedes, not Hamilton? I checked 3 and a half hours ago when it still had the Hamilton picture 2603:8080:D03:89D4:78DA:157D:86D6:5FD0 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Should be “he was won…” 2603:8080:D03:89D4:9135:EF57:ED2D:911 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Rivalry with Max Verstappen

Not sure if this has been discussed before or not, but it seems odd that Max Verstappen is not included in Hamilton's "Rivalries" section, having been fairly bitter rivals for four years now with a highly controversial title battle amongst them. The same here applies for Felipe Massa, although it makes more sense including a three-time World Champion in the list alongside Alonso, Vettel and Rosberg, as this list is very much incomplete without him. Mb2437 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides 2021, when were they bitter rivals? The reason that Verstappen isn't mentioned here is because a rivarly of one year doesn't justify discussion beyond what is already in the 2021 section of this article. SSSB (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

VER and HAM have clashed in as many seasons as all of those drivers, making contact or racing hard in several seasons e.g. 2016, 2018, 2022 and 2024, with Verstappen deemed by many sources to be the natural successor to Hamilton's dominance. I get that they've only had one real championship affair but I think the bitterness and memorability of it supersedes that. The public will remember his rivalry with Verstappen far better than his rivalry with Vettel, which I believe calls for its inclusion. Mb2437 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hamilton has clashed with dozens of drivers across multiple seasons. Thats the nature of racing in a championship where the majority of drivers have extended stays. That doesn't make a rivalry. If sources exist which describe a rivalry spanning multiple seasons, I would not opposed (at this stage) but from my perspective these do not exist. Sources I have seen simply describe the rivalry lasting the one season, because they have only really competed in similarly performing cars for one season. Most of the time one driver battles past the other because they are out of place, and they are both excellent at battling, and unwilling to yield resulting in "making contact or racing hard". SSSB (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Alonso's only real claim to inclusion is 2007, with 2010 and 2012 fairly close but not memorable for their bolstering their rivalry. Only 2007 is mentioned in the Alonso section. Without clear inclusion criteria, it should be decided on memorability, whereby Verstappen should absolutely be included amongst his greatest rivals. Mb2437 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be defined by the extent of discussion amoungst secondary sources, not our personal feelings. If sources exist that explitly mention a rivarly, then add a section. Otherwise, we can't. SSSB (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course they exist. Rivalries sell papers. Whether it’s notable in the same way as rivalries with team-mates, I have my doubts. Personally, I don’t think I’d describe Vettel as a notable rival either. Btljs (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Recent edits involving the lead section of this article made me question why is it still incomplete, given its status as a "Good Article". The previous discussion under the same topic failed to reach a consensus, therefore I would like to re-open the conversation and invite all interested editors to contribute toward achieving a consensus.

My input: I agree with the opinions of @Cerebral726 and SSSB, and with the edits of @DualSkream, the abnormal ending of the 2021 season, along with the challenges Hamilton face in the 2022 and 2023 seasons are important contents to be mentioned in the lead. Many readers prefer to read only the lead rather than the entire article, it is our responsibility to provide the article with a comprehensive overview in the lead. The current lead obviously does not serve those kind of readers. I welcome the thoughts and insights of other editors on this matter. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

To expand on my opinion, the lead is supposed to sumarise the body. As the lead summarises the career chronologically, it should discuss (on some level) every year (even if we group 3/4 seasons together in a single sentence). Otherwise it just reads as incomplete. SSSB (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Mb2437 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Rosberg beating him should be made explicit to explain the gap in his championships. It only needs adding to the “after Rosberg retired” sentence. And yes, the Verstappen safety car incident is lede material and ties up the chronology. Btljs (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above. The lead should be comprehensive, therefore it should include the important elements of 2013, 2016, and 2021-2023 seasons, including Hamilton finishing runner-up to Rosberg in 2016. Me personally think this is how the incomplete part of the lead should be (might require a minor rephrase),

Securing a solitary victory with the new team in 2013, regulations changes for the 2014 season mandating the use of turbo-hybrid engines saw the start of a highly successful period for Hamilton, during which he won six further drivers' titles. Consecutive titles came in 2014 and 2015 during an intense rivalry with teammate Nico Rosberg. In 2016, Hamilton finished runner-up to Rosberg by five points. Following Rosberg's retirement at the end of 2016, Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel became Hamilton's closest rival in two championship battles, in which he twice overturned mid-season point deficits to claim consecutive titles again in 2017 and 2018. His third and fourth consecutive titles followed in 2019 and 2020 to equal Schumacher's record of seven drivers' titles, he also broke the record for most wins in the latter season. Hamilton became the first driver to surpass 100 race wins and pole positions in 2021, a year where he narrowly missed out on the title to Max Verstappen in a controversial finish. Despite another set of regulation change drastically affecting Mercedes, two winless seasons would follow until he would become the first driver to win beyond their 300th Grand Prix start in 2024. He will be leaving Mercedes after a record twelve years to join Ferrari for the 2025 season and beyond.

FormulaFreak1 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I like that. I’d avoid the conditional tense “would win” etc. and just use simple past tense like the rest of the paragraph. Otherwise go for it. Btljs (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The despite at the begining of the penultimate sentence is misplaced. Hamilton didn't win because the new regs drastically affected Mercedes, not the other way around. But "despite" is also Wikipedia:EDITORIAL. SSSB (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my newbie mistake. Given another 24 hours, and still if no objections were raised for this agreement, we might have to consider this as consensus and move forward with the proposed changes to the article. Correct? FormulaFreak1 (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You can Wikipedia:Be bold in 24 hours (or now) if you want. But to be able to claim a consensus we probably want (I say "probably want" because there is no rule of what does or does not constitute a consensus) to leave this for a week, and we would need the input of several more editors. SSSB (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Changes were made to the lead as per this consensus. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Re-wrote most of this within the consensus, will need checking through by other editors as this is a GA of very-high importance. Touched upon each season concisely, corrected the junior career linearity and replaced the 300+ GP stat (fairly niche) with it being his record-breaking ninth British GP win. Mb2437 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

Hospital where Lewis Hamilton was born. Hello9898989898 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2024 (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. Dawnseeker2000 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a source for this on simple Wikipedia if we need one. However, I just don't see it as relevant. Why is this something worth mentioning? SSSB (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2024

Change "braking" to "breaking" in second paragraph of Top section:

His third and fourth consecutive titles followed in 2019 and 2020 to equal Schumacher's record of seven drivers' titles, also braking the record for most wins during the process. CloudPath (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've corrected the typo, but you'll need to provide a source for your statement. ⸺(Random)staplers 01:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes in "2022–2024: Mercedes' struggles and departure"

Since it seems that the user, Mb2437 is not entirely satisfied with some information under the "2022–2024: Mercedes' struggles and departure" subtitle, I am initiating this discussion to reach a proper consensus regarding this matter. I request the input of other interested editors to contribute towards achieving consensus.

User, Mb2437 claims that the current version of this subtitle does not maintain a neutral point of view, which I strongly disagree with. In my opinion, the current version is supported by reliable sources and does not include any editorial bias that would violate WP:NPOV. Furthermore, even if the information may appear biased, WP:NPOV suggests that we are not permitted to remove sourced content but required to rewrite it if necessary. I would now like to address the changes made by the user Mb2437 and provide my personal opinions on them,

1. Removed information regarding Hamilton's run of experimental car setups in 2022

I consider this to be a crucial element that should remain in the article. Hamilton had never done this before in his F1 career, it informs the readers that Hamilton's contribution towards car development and the 2022 season was not merely a repetition of his 2009 season.

2. Added solely about Hamilton's struggles in the latter half of the 2024 season, Toto Wolff's claim, but nothing about Mercedes' drop in performance

Toto Wolff's "shelf life" comment does not reflect anything meaningful about Hamilton's F1 career, and I believe Hamilton's US GP retirement is not significant enough to be included in the article, because similar mistakes have occurred throughout his career. The article should remain concise to be focused on its overall narrative, race retirements like these are irrelevant. Additionally, my source in the article suggests that both Mercedes drivers struggled to achieve better results after the summer break due to Mercedes' difficulties, implying that it is not only Hamilton who is responsible for his recent struggles.

3. Removed mention of 2021 regulation changes affecting Mercedes, and added Red Bull's "performance gains" instead

This is misleading. The source discusses how the 2021 regulation changes affected Mercedes, and this information is vital to understanding the team's performance challenges that year after the dominant 2020 season.

4. Added more information on the 2021 collisions and Jonny Herbert's claim

The next paragraph already states that the Hamilton-Verstappen battle is "one of the most intense, hard-fought battles in sporting history," making a similar quote from a certain former F1 driver is redundant and irrelevant. Hamilton's 2021 season already has its own subtitle and is adequately, but fairly, detailed. Adding information about the races in which both drivers collided seems irrelevant in this context.

5. Added Russell's Belgian GP disqualification

Once again, the article should remain concise. For instance, the article includes nothing about Hamilton inheriting the win from Vettel at the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix, therefore we should not delve into details on Hamilton's individual race wins like these.

FormulaFreak1 (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my edits; the article was not written from a neutral point of view:

1) can be perceived as an excuse, it was previously written as if he designed the car himself. Correlation is not causation, we'd need major sources crediting him solely with the development boosts, anything else is original research.

2) you cannot selectively remove information about his mistakes, which are important context to the quote; as is the Wolff quote, which helps paint the picture of his situation at Mercedes. We cannot blame Mercedes for everything, Russell led half of that race... it may be adding Wolff's quote on "failing" Hamilton however.

3) the previous claim that Red Bull were outperforming Mercedes because they won "6 out of 11 races" was utterly ridiculous; "performance gains" is, again, more neutral. Their gains cannot be solely attributed to the relatively minor reg changes, as Verstappen comfortably won the 2020 Abu Dhabi GP.

4) the detail regarding their collisions forms important context to the season, and didn't particularly over-detail it. The quote from Herbert can probably be removed, but it wasn't meant to represent the view of a "certain former F1 driver" as you're implying.

5) again, it is important context to the victory, you are selectively removing information to suit a narrative. As it is one of only two wins mentioned in this section, it doesn't need to be condensed in the way as his wins in 2019.

Furthermore, even if the information may appear biased, WP:NPOV suggests that we are not permitted to remove sourced content but required to rewrite it if necessary. You literally removed sourced content in your reversion.

Mb2437 (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

An important note to 5 is that it was the first time in 30 years a driver inherited a victory via a disqualification, so it's fairly noteworthy. Mb2437 (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That is trivia, and makes it noteworthy for the event only, not the driver. I agree with FormulaFreak on point 5. Mentioning the win was inherited for this event but not 2019 is strange to say the least. I would argue that mentioning one but not the other is non-neutral inconsistency. In both instances Hamilton inherited a win because of a penalty. If we are going to mention that win was inherited for only one of the instances, I actually think there is a stronger arguement for only mentioning it with regards to 2019. The 2019 incident was more controversial and Vettel went off track (earning the penalty) because of presure from Hamilton. This is therefore more noteworthy, both in general and to Hamilton specifically. SSSB (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The 2019 win isn't mentioned at all with how trimmed down that respective section is. If we're giving the 2024 win its own sentence, it can't really go unmentioned as he was not the winner on the provisional classification. A lot of the 2022–2024 section needs re-writing anyway, the language is far too editorial, with cherrypicked statements such as "accomplishing a greater average finishing position in the latter half of the season compared to Russell" that do not analyse the seasons neutrally. Mb2437 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not its own sentence. Secondly, it really can go unmentioned. The only issue I see with the sentence in it's current form ([1]) is that we specified it as his 105th win (totally non-notable number, why bother specifying it).

With respect, who cares what the provisional classification says. whether he was demoted before or after the publication of the provisional classification is irrelevant. What is relevant is the noteworthyness. In the context of 105 wins, not being in a championship fight and finishing less than a second behind an illegal car, I would argue it has no noteworthness at all. SSSB (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

My bad, it's hard to read back through a lot of the recent prose in this article. Point 5 is probably the one I'm least concerned about, I'm more concerned about the rife editorialising and disjointed analyses that are often misleading. It's not good enough for a GA of such importance. Mb2437 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it may not be essential to mention it as his 105th win. But I do think the victory itself is worth mentioning, since it is one of his only two (so far) wins this season. Don't you think? FormulaFreak1 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree it should be at least mentioned. Mb2437 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree FormulaFreak1 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPA Mb2437 (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to emphasize that I do not hold any personal grudge against you, and I genuinely appreciate certain aspects of your work in this article, particularly the lead section. However, on this occasion, I respectfully disagree with your changes/edits.

Regarding your statement, "previously written as if he designed the car himself," could you please clarify what you mean by "previously"? I am unsure how the current version expresses a false narrative like that.

I am not suggesting that Mercedes should be blamed entirely for the situation. In fact, I was planning to mention Hamilton’s recent struggles in qualifying, which is primarily the reason behind his poor results. While I understand this is not the ideal place to delve into race discussions, it is worth noting that Hamilton has consistently shown his usual strong performances during races, even after poor qualifying performances (and even in the US GP, before the DNF). Therefore, simply labeling his performances as "mistake-laden" does not fully capture the whole picture. I would suggest adding a more specific reference to his qualifying struggles, along with Mercedes' overall drop in performance and removing the irrelevant Toto Wolff claim.

The article’s source suggests that the 2021 regulations had a significant impact on Mercedes' performance, and favored high-rake cars in the likes of Red Bull. Given this, I believe it is important to mention that Red Bull 6 out of the first 11 races of 2021, as it helps to better explain the consequences of the regulatory changes for the readers. I would prefer to stick to the information provided by the source, rather than speculating that a "minor" change would not have made such a substantial difference.

The article should not go into details about the races in which both drivers collided, it reads more like a season summary of the 2021 season. Readers can easily find this information in the dedicated season article, so I feel it is unnecessary to include it here. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course, nothing personal here either!

Tying Hamilton's setup trial-and-error directly into car performance cannot be done without a secondary, independent source backing it up, the points should be separate otherwise. I agree his qualifying form should be mentioned, but I would wait until the end of the season to analyse his teammate head-to-head—ideally with race form too.

The Toto Wolff claim is not irrelevant, it's an important point in highlighting the friction between the two that has led to Hamilton's departure; Hamilton's comments came in response to both that and his poor performances in the US and Brazil, which were both uncharacteristically mistake-laden, verified by all of the sources given. The quote without the direct context means nothing to the reader, and it is misleading to suggest it was because he was begrudged by Mercedes being slower after Belgium.

Red Bull winning 6 out of 11 races does not paint any picture, that is essentially half. The article is about Hamilton, not the reg changes, it is clearer and more concise to simply state that Red Bull made performance gains which saw Hamilton and Verstappen closely matched. The small mention of their collisions in parentheses simply highlights to the reader how contentious their battle was, it doesn't paint an accurate picture simply stating they both won a lot of races and duelled on track here-and-there given how many highly-controversial moments there were. I don't understand why details of regulation changes should be mentioned and not the flashpoints of the widely-covered title battle. I'll also note that "one of the greatest sporting performances" is extremely contentious, and should be reworded to "one of his greatest performances", with "impressive" taken out before "recovery drive". We'd need major sources analysing the greatest sporting performances of all time to verify such a claim, not one opinion piece. Other changes were grammatical.

There is a lot of language which goes against MOS:EDITORIAL; buzzwords such as "despite", "but", "however", etc. are used extensively, as are superlatives such as the "impressive" mentioned before, and "drastically affecting", all of which contribute to my claim that these analyses are not neutral and do need re-writing. Mb2437 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)