Jump to content

Talk:Lewis Hamilton/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Good Article

I've nominated the article for good article status; as it stands it's certainly capable of meeting the criteria. BeL1EveR 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Review comments

*Need to use Hamilton, not Lewis.

Done. I cleared all instances of 'Lewis' not long ago, amazing how they come flooding back in. 4u1e 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

*Cites need to be moved to afer comma or full stop.

Done. 4u1e 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

*Lead needs to include a overview of career progression, GP2 etc, not just what happened this year and is currently too statistical

Comment. Agreed, will take a little longer to write it as a summary of the article. 4u1e 21:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Done?- I've re-written it to give the reader an idea of how he progressed to reach Formula One, and have adapted the second paragraph so that it only lists his most notable achievements. I guess this does give editors a licence to add some of the content I deleted to the records section if they deem it necessary. My question mark is whether the correct amount of emphasis has been placed on his racing career prior to F1.BeL1EveR 17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think that's the right coverage. It may be a little on the short side, but this article's not very long yet either, so that's probably OK. 4u1e 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

**"Hamilton's debut year in 2007 has been exceptional so far" - weasel words

Done. Don't think these are weasel words, but they are unnecessary, and perhaps a little peacock-y. 4u1e 07:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*missing punctuation marks in the first para

Comment. Probably just me, but I can't see it. Could you specify? Ta. 4u1e 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Think I got it - originally thought you meant the lead. 4u1e 07:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*First para goes up until age 11, then next para jumps back to something at age 8.

Comment True, but you will not be able to write an encyclopedic article that is fully chronological, due to the need to separate out different topics: in this case 'Family life' and 'Racing career', which overlap, particularly due to Lewis' close involvement with his father. I agree that the split is not quite right at present. Will think further. 4u1e 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The important thing is that the article is kept in chronological order as far as is reasonably practical. Personal life itself cannot reasonably be incorporated into his racing career, and if it were this would adversly affect the quality of the article.
Done I've moved some of the content so that racing-specific details from the personal section are now contained in karting. Karting itself may require a slight re-write, but otherwise the balance seems reasonable. BeL1EveR 18:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Agree that it is done as far as it can be. 4u1e 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*Second and last paragraph of karting not fully sourced

Comment This should also be accompanied by a re-write. Going back to the previous point, does the last paragraph belong in karting, personal life, or should it be in the article at all? BeL1EveR 18:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'd not too fussed, but would err on the side of dropping it - how important will it seem 10 years from now? If it is kept, it should be much shorter. I suppose it could go into a section on 'Lewis-mania', something which has been commented on in the press a couple of times recently, but again that could all die out before the end of the season, so I'm reluctant to go down that route yet. 4u1e 09:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I tend to agree that karting should become shorter, but at the moment eight years of carting given a third of the weighting given to eight races in F1 seems a fair balance. Its inclusion does the article no harm, so perhaps we should address it again at the end of the season? BeL1EveR 17:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, I should have been clearer. I don't necessarily think the karting section should be shorter, just the mention of the karting event in London and the damage to the kart sold on eBay. His karting career on the other hand is important: he was very successful and that's where he made his reputation. Cheers. 4u1e 20:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*"espite stiff opposition from rivals who had raced in the GP2 series during 2005, such as team mate Alexandre Prémat and Nelson Angelo Piquet," weasel words - cite points margin, compare #wins etc

Comment See anon comment below. 4u1e 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Done Removed the offending phrase. Could use some other material in there as you suggest. 4u1e 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*"He remained with Manor for another year and won the championship convincingly with ten wins, beating Alex Lloyd with 419 points to 377." 10% points gap doesn't seem that convincing. I Think Alonso beat MS by about 10% points margin last year.::Comment. See anon comment below. 4u1e 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Re-written without the word convincingly, giving the comparative wins and points instead, and noting that Hamilton missed the last two races of the season. 4u1e 07:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*"Hamilton started testing for McLaren in Spain in November 2006." I thought he was on the test roster before that...

Done. It was in fact September 2006 in Silverstone, and I've sourced accordingly. BeL1EveR 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment That's the earliest test I can find a source for, however there's an inconsistency with a comment in the "Junior formulae" section, which suggests he first tested in 2004. I've removed the comment for now as I've had a good look and can't find any record of this test. I've also started a seperate thread in the hope this is cleared up soon. BeL1EveR 18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Done See First F1 test section below. BeL1EveR 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*"After his record-breaking start, Hamilton was widely praised by the British media, with Frank Williams describing him as "superhuman"." Don't need the first clause, since it was already specified earlier what the record was, and by itself is weaselish. Also they aren't media, they are active/semi-retired F1 insiders.

Done. 4u1e 21:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have introduced alternative sources wherever possible. Before I started f1 fanatic was the sole citation in eight places. It now sources three points, one of which is also sourced by a second citation. Furthermore, on the basis that I have been able to cite 75% of its original coverage with reliable sources and without difficulty, this would seem to suggest that f1 fanatic is a reasonably reliable source, and thus I would argue it should remain as a source on the basis that I've found no reason to dispute its content. Thoughts on this matter welcome. BeL1EveR 18:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Should the 'source may need verification' remark be deleted then? 86.138.238.14 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the FRenault season, he won ten races from 17 rounds versus Lloyd's two, with 32 points for a win and 28 for second. Hamilton didn't do the last two races because he was already champion. On the GP2 part, his opposition was strong and both drivers cited had raced in the series the year before. 193.243.130.14 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead just needs to be doubled or tripled in size now, keeping the same proportions between F1 and early career. Apart from that, it is looking pretty good. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The size of the actual text from this article is 10kb or around 10,000 characters. The guidelines say that an article under 32kb or about 15,000 characters should only be one or two paragraphs in length. This article is well under the lower threshold and one paragraph meets the requirements of WP:MoS, which is all that is required for WP:GA. I agree the lead should be a little longer, but there is no actionable requirement to treble it in length. Cheers. 4u1e 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've expanded the lead paragraph. Are there any topics missing from it that should be included? Cheers. 4u1e 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be something on the article mainspace itself (rather than just the talk page) that indicates this is now classed as a GA? Regards, Lynbarn 08:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Not the way the system currently works. I've wondered whether it would be an idea in the past - you could suggest it at the WP:GA talk page. Thanks to Blnguyen for a thorough review, by the way! Cheeers. 4u1e 08:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First F1 test

There was a comment in the junior formulae section that seems to suggest Hamilton first tested an F1 car in December 2004. However the earliest record I can find of him testing is September 2006, which I've sourced. If somebody has a source for an earlier F1 test please can they provide a date, source and location? Thanks. BeL1EveR 18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

BeL1EveR, the official McLaren site states:
On 8th September 2006 Lewis won the GP2 Series Championship with the ART team at Monza in Italy, winning five out of 22 rounds, and on Wednesday 13th September Lewis tested the Team McLaren Mercedes Formula 1 car for the first time at the Silverstone circuit in the UK.
If this was not the source you used, then it certainly seems to confirm that the 2004 date is incorrect. (although a comma inserted after first time would have helped to clarify their meaning!) Hope that helps. Regards, Lynbarn 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hamilton tested a McLaren MP4-19 in December 2004, with Alex Lloyd and Jamie Green. They did 21 laps each at Silverstone. If I can find a source, I'll add it, but it is definitely true. Bretonbanquet 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Bretonbanquet 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That looks fairly convincing. Funny that McLaren seems to have forgotten... Lynbarn 10:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a little odd. The 2004 test is also well sourced on Forix, but that's a pay website, so less suitable for citing. Bretonbanquet 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I knew it was a pretty farfetched idea that they'd appoint Hamilton the same month that he made his very first test (let alone two months before he started testing), but couldn't find a source backing my hunch up. Nice work Bretonbanquet. BeL1EveR 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Podium on debut

The following reference states that Hamilton is the 13th driver to finish on the podium on his debut (excluding the first race in 1950):

  • "Hamilton makes history". F1Fanatic.co.uk. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-22.

However, this article states he's fourteenth:

Which is correct? --Muchness 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I make it 14, as follows:
  • [50 gb: farina, fagioli, parnell]
  • 1: 50 mon: ascari
  • 2: 50 fra: whitehead(p)
  • 3: 50 ita: serafini
  • 4: 52 sui: behra
  • 5: 54 fra: kling
  • 6: 55 mon: perdisa
  • 7: 57 mon: gregory
  • 8: 61 fra: baghetti
  • 9: 64 mon: arundell
  • 10: 66 fra: parkes
  • 11: 70 usa: wisell
  • 12: 71 can: donohue
  • 13: 96 aus: villeneuve(j)
  • 14: 07 aus: hamilton(l)
DH85868993 07:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go ahead and update the article to use the second ref. --Muchness 07:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Boxed Quote

A quote about LH from Michael Schumacher has been removed several times recently, but without any explanation. Please could somebody explain what is wrong with this section of the article? Its seems perfectly reasonable to me. Regards, Lynbarn 09:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with it, it's a relevant point from that time in his career. It might be considered invalid if it did not represent the normal view of Hamilton at that point, but as far as I am aware he has always been highly thought of. I can't think of any particular criticisms of him made before Villeneuve's rather odd comments earlier this year. I've asked the anon again to discuss it here. 4u1e 10:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Colour

While it is of some interest that he's of Afro-Caribbean ancestry, his record in Formula 1 makes two mentions of it including the opening sentence. I have removed it from there and included non-duplicate information at the end of that section. --AJKGordon 14:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Lynbarn's comments on the edit summary, I agree with the rationale behind the edit. We don't currently need to state he's the first black driver to win a race, as he's the only one to have competed in the sport. However if or when a second black driver enters the sport I think it would then become necessary to clarify that Hamilton is the first/only black driver to win a race. BeL1EveR 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of difficulty with the whole thing to be honest. First of all, we should not be describing him as black anyway. As his mother is white, it would be as accurate to describe him as white! Secondly, so what? Is it really that notable? Since when does the concentration of melanin in a person's skin have an effect on his skills as a racing driver? However it can be argued that it is notable in a cultural context. So I am changing those two sentences slightly to refer to geographical and cultural descent ("of African or Caribbean descent") rather than him being black, which is both inaccurate and irrelevant. --AJKGordon 08:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(Although I'm sure someone will say that we're all ultimately of African descent!) --AJKGordon 08:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(Did it months ago - see the archive!) 4u1e 09:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I take your point AJKGordon, but I think it's possibly not accurate to describe Hamilton as the first F1 driver/winner "of African or Caribbean descent". Consider that 1979 World Champion Jody Scheckter is South African. I haven't checked, but I think it's pretty likely that both his parents are South African. Wouldn't that make Scheckter "of African descent"? (Note: it's a serious question: I'm not trying to be "clever"). I'd probably agree that Hamilton is the first F1 driver/winner "of Afro-Caribbean descent". And of course the other problem is that many of the sources we are referencing just describe him as "black". So it's hard to know where to draw the line between technical accuracy, and faithfulness to the references. DH85868993 08:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm good point. This is where political correctness (which I must admit I'm trying to follow) is so limiting. The trouble is Afro-Caribbean doesn't mean African or Caribbean. It means people from the Caribbean of African descent. At least it does in a British context - the American definition might be different. What would be more accurate would be "of black African or Caribbean descent". But God knows what the PC would say to that! It's the mixing of "race" (a term which is controversial) and "culture" that causes the problem in my POV. I will try it and see if it causes any editing. --AJKGordon 09:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have also consolidated the two relevant sentences into one to avoid duplicating the rather clumsy phrase. I think it reads OK now and doesn't dwell on colour or "race". I hope everyone agrees. --AJKGordon 09:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any wikiprojects that might have an agreed position on how to refer to people of Lewis' background? 4u1e 10:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we will ever find an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with this - even not mentioning race/colour/culture at all will be wrong to some - so this is probably about the best we can achieve. Regards, Lynbarn 10:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In any case, he's not the first black driver in the sport. Narain Karthikeyan is black is he not? Readro 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This is why I so dislike racial definitions. While many people wouldn't describe him as black because that normally means some sort of sub-Saharan African ancestry, his skin is probably darker than that of Hamilton. But so what!!! Irrelevant!! But it's notable culturally in the same way as the notability of Tiger Woods and the Williams sisters. Personally I don't get it but we need to put something in there that covers it. --AJKGordon 08:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that telling where his father is from and the picture in the bio are plenty fine for aleviating any confusion. He cannoy be called black, and how can anyone prove no one else in formula one ever had any afro-caribean blood?68.187.117.71 09:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the right term to use here might be 'mixed race.' as this is the widely used term for someone of white and black parentage. I can't imagine this causing any offence to anyone. 12/10/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.162 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This particular discussion has moved further down the talk page. -- Scjessey 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He's made some remarks about being black that I thought were worth adding, but perhaps the second paragraph would work better within a separate section on ethnicity? Fasterthansound 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, ethinicity is clearly an interestingly unique part of his "wikibility". Unlike the driver mentioned above (I'm sorry but have you even read that name or actually visited the page you just linked to? That driver is quite obviously Indian) and although the term "black" can be used in a large number of contexts, we should not seek to be willfully ignorant here; it is immediately obvious of which context we are speaking of. It is as notable of a distinction in the sport of F1 as is Tiger Woods in golf and Yao Ming in basketball. This is not an anthropological breakdown of his ethnicity and I believe, for the most part, the term "black" or "Afro-Carribean" descent will suffice in the intro paragraph. To not make mention of it in the intro (as is made mention of his belonging to other anthropological groupings i.e. British) would appear as if it was being intentionally withheld (infact it is one of the reasons why I take such interest in him and visited this wiki page). We should drop all this politically correct vainness and prune paragraphs of overly complex contrived terms to explain his ethnicity. Simple terms as mentioned above, along with the ethnicity of his parents (perhaps in a section entitled "Ethnicity" or "Records") should suffice. 74.12.74.247 10:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

School expulsion

Although this is recorded as a fact, is this of sufficient notability to be included? It appears to have been a one-off incident, and one in which Lewis wasn't involved in any case! Regards, Lynbarn 15:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete it, he didn't actually do anything, so it's non-notable. 4u1e 16:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived

This talk page was getting a bit long so I have archived discussions from before July (ish). They can be found at Talk:Lewis Hamilton/Archive 1. Cheers. QmunkE 11:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

External link - F1F biography

As we've now apparently agreed this is reliable (above) does anyone object to me restoring this link to the external links section?

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-information/whos-who/whos-who-h/lewis-hamilton/

There are at least three problems with the above website. Firstly, WP:EL guidelines recommend against linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Secondly, WP:EL recommends against linking to "personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". Finally, the images on that site have unverifiable copyright status, and we may not link to sites that may be infringing on the creator's copyright. --Muchness 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
To take your points in order: (1) I don't see how F1Fanatic.co.uk any less a unique resource than the driversdb link already in there? (2) Many other F1 articles on Wikipedia link to F1Fanatic, and its veracity has been supported in the discussion above. Given that, I feel we should recognise it as an authority. I am also unsure of the term 'personal web page' (as discussed on the archive talk page) as F1Fanatic has multiple contributors. (3) The copyright status of the images is not unverifiable - you could try asking the author: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/credits-and-contacts/contact-f1fanatic 193.243.130.14 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton effect

Does anyone think a paragraph looking at Hamilton's effect on the popularity of F1 would be worthwhile? Within Britain, among ethnic minority groups, that sort of thing? 193.243.130.14 07:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a terrible idea, but any such paragraph would have to have reputable sources that help conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Hamilton has had a causal effect on the increase in viewing figures/ race attendance. It could easily be argued that whilst Hamilton is undoubtedly a breath of fresh air, the reason for the rise in viewing figures is that this is the most competitive season in years. It would also have to be written in a manner that was widely accepted to be NPOV, something I think would be almost impossible.
To summarise; potentially good idea, virtually impossible to implement to wikipedia's standards. BeL1EveR 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

UK TV ratings are here: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&RequestTimeout=500 British GP 2004 - 3.63 British GP 2007 - 3.85 Not much of an effect there.--Don Speekingleesh 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenson was competitive in 2004 though. A better comparison would be 2005, with no competitive British driver. I think the effect is worldwide though, and probably slightly higher among non-whites--MartinUK 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Where is your proof of any of this?68.187.117.71 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
And it's not just a question of TV figures - look at race attendance at Silverstone, for example, with 207,000 attending over the weekend. 193.243.130.14 11:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nitty gritty

"Hamilton suffered criticism from former driver and 1997 champion Jacques Villeneuve, who accused him of "nitty gritty" at the start of Grands Prix" Can you accuse someone of nitty gritty? I don't think this makes sense. 193.243.130.14 08:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't - it's been changed from "chopping", presumably by some moron who believes the urban myth that "nitty gritty" has something to do with the slave trade. I've changed it back. -- Ian Dalziel 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence rewording

"Hamilton is the first driver of black African or Caribbean descent to compete in Formula One,[34] although Willy T. Ribbs tested an F1 car in 1986,[35] and to win a major race at Indianapolis Motor Speedway in any discipline."

This sentence is quite awkward and potentially confusing. Could someone please reword it? Further, is the mention of Willy T. Ribbs necessary? It doesn't impact on Hamilton being the first black F1 race driver. Hammer Raccoon 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of mentioning Ribbs is to reinforce/clarify that the article is not claiming that Hamilton is the first black driver to drive a Formula One car, but that he's the first to race in Formula One. I'll put the bit about Ribbs in brackets, in an effort to improve the way the sentence reads. DH85868993 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I reworded it so it now reads: "Hamilton is the first driver of black African or Caribbean descent to compete in Formula One[39] (although Willy T. Ribbs tested an F1 car in 1986[40]) and the first black driver to win a major race at Indianapolis Motor Speedway in any discipline." My point about potential confusion was that the original wording could be read to mean that he was the first black driver to both drive in F1 and win at Indy. Hammer Raccoon 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the "African or Caribbean descent" part is appropriate. In this context, the distinction is irrelevant. There are also other parts of the world where people have a black complexion (Fiji, for example). -- Scjessey 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Hammer Raccoon 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. This has already been discussed. He is as much "white" as he is "black" and such racial stereotypes make no sense. African or Caribbean descent is more accurate and highlights the cultural aspect rather than skin colour - the latter having no relevance to his skills as a Formula 1 driver. I'm reverting the phrasing. --AJKGordon 10:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And I've reverted your edit. As has already been reiterated and agreed upon, the distinction between the various ancestral people is completely irrelevant, and borderline racist. I would prefer to see the article purged of all mention of skin colour because I don't see what it has to do with motor racing, but other editors seem to think that Hamilton being black is a big deal. -- Scjessey 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the comment in the "records" section. The use of "black" is relevant because of the cited reference, but any further discussion of Hamilton's ethnicity is irrelevant to his participation in the sport. -- Scjessey 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I must be missing something. I don't understand how the inclusion of cultural ancestry can be considered "borderline racist" while the inclusion of black can't. My original edit some while back actually removed reference to skin colour because, like you, I didn't feel it was relevant. However, it seems that it is notable so that form of words was more or less agreed in the previous discussion. The point is that if we are going to report his skin colour, for whatever bizarre reason, it should be accurate. Simply stating that he is black inaccurate - or as accurate as stating that he is white. We felt that an allusion to his cultural background with the inclusion of the word black might be an acceptable compromise. It seemed reasonable to me and others and an improvement over the inaccurate racial pigeon-holing of "black" and is more inclusively notable, i.e. first F1 winner from that culture or partly of that culture not just that colour (a term many dislike anyway).
Your point on relevance is interesting. While you and I might find his ethnicity irrelevant to his participation in the sport, others most certainly find it notable in the same way as the Williams sisters or Tiger Woods in their respective sports.
To me, the simple "first black driver" is inaccurate and grates, hence the previous change.
(Sorry about the "rvv" by the way - that was unintentional. --AJKGordon 13:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about the "rvv" - it happens.
I'm uncomfortable with any reference to ethnicity in this article, since it isn't really relevant to the subject matter; however, major media outlets have made a big deal of Lewis Hamilton being "black", so I guess that must also be reflected in the article. I do not believe any deeper categorization of colour is necessary, because (a) the cited articles do not mention it, (b) the Wikipedia article linked in the text offers an unbiased description of the meaning of "black" anyway, and (c) the ethnicity can be deduced from the "Personal and early life" section. That should be plenty of detail. -- Scjessey 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the position that if media outlets are reporting that Hamilton is the first black F1 driver, and if they are calling him black, then we should report that. It's not really our job to dissect news coverage of Hamilton and determine whether or not their description of Hamilton is correct or even pertinent. If there are reliable sources saying he is the first black F1 driver, then that is what we write. By the by, when I went to check the Sports Illustrated reference that we have been using for the "Hamilton is first black F1 driver" sentence, it didn't seem to be working, so I replaced it with another Sports Illustrated article that also mentions this. Hammer Raccoon 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Scjessey, I wasn't categorising Hamilton's colour any deeper - rather I was including his supposed colour in a cultural context to make it rather less raw. Whether we like definitions of colour or not, it is notable that Hamilton is the first winning F1 driver whose cultural ancestry is part black African or Caribbean. (White African or Caribbean represents a different culture hence the inclusion of the word black). By making this further distinction, we take away this obsession with his supposed colour while still reporting it, but also putting it in a cultural context which has relevance to the sport (as he's the first) and to the person himself to whom this article is dedicated. This is what makes it notable rather than the concentration of melanin in his skin - the latter being, of course, borderline racist. It's lazy journalism to over-simplify his "roots" by just stating that he's black and I don't believe that by making this refinement we are guilty of original research. I may not be making my point very eloquently but Wikipedia simply repeating or referencing inaccurate journalism is not very encyclopaedic IMO. --AJKGordon 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think 'mixed race' will suffice nicely. 12/10/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.162 (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sentence re: receiving the aid of cranes

The last sentence:

"FIA outlawed receiving the aid of cranes and tow trucks shortly afterward."

is followed by a cite to a Times Online article. Apart from the fact that the link points to the wrong section (which is a seperate issue), the article doesn't support this sentence at all. The article writer only speculates that this might happen, it certainitely doesn't state conclusively that it has happened:

"On this subject I hear the FIA is going to - or may already have - outlawed the practice of drivers getting cranes to lift them back onto the track, as happened at the Nurburgring to Lewis, something which prompted a most enjoyable rules debate on this blog."

I reckon the sentence should be taken out, as it adds nothing to the article and is not supported by the link (unless someone could actually cite it)? If you object, please put back in with a proper cite to a respected site that actually can back it up with an actual statement. Smoothy 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The International Sporting Code states that cranes can not be used to return a stopped car to the track unless the driver specifically states that they are not going to continue. Direct quote from the rules.

"No driver has the right to refuse to allow his car to be taken off the track, he must do everything he can to help and obey the marshals’ instructions. Once the car is in a place of safety the driver may, if the specific regulations of the event permit, work on it in order to re-start. In such cases other means, such as breakdown vehicles, cranes, etc. should not be brought into action until the driver has made it clear that he will not continue."

The rule is in Section 6.1 of Chapter 3 of Appendix H of the sporting code (page 10). sdgjake 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Balanced/Unbalanced. May be too long?=

Like in Fernando Alonso article I think this article is a bit unbalanced too. In my opinion it gives too much importance about the Junior Formulas which in my opinion are not as notable as F1. Finally I don't know if it has been discussed but I think that after the end of the season it is necessary to reduce the narration of the season and leave only a brief section here. if not when Hamilton is 30 or 35 years old the article will have may be 50 pages :) --GillesV 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

I believe the opposite is true, that the Junior Formulae, especially GP2 and F3 Euroseries should have at least a paragraph or more, as he was after all champion of these, which I believe is a notable achievement in itself.

www.lewishamiltonf1site.com

Thanks

No, it doesn't exist. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This link spamming of what I am assuming is this guys personal fan site here and on the Fernando Alonso page is very quickly running out of 'Good Faith'. Is there any way we can stop it? Narson 16:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Warn the user with anyone of these below --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Description Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 4im
Adding spam links {{subst:uw-spam1}} {{subst:uw-spam2}} {{subst:uw-spam3}} {{subst:uw-spam4}} {{subst:uw-spam4im}}

"F word" comments

Earlier, user 88.110.173.236 made these edits - basically removing the transcript of Hamilton and Dennis' alleged heated conversation during Hungarian Grand Prix qualifying. Whilst I disagree with the edits themselves (we already clarify further down that the comments have been disputed by McLaren and Hamilton, and have an Autosport article that says the actual events may have been exaggerated by the media) I think its important to discuss whether we need a full transcript of the conversation, especially when its veracity has been called into question. Maybe these events could be summarised more succinctly without having to quote a conversation that may or may not have happened. Hammer Raccoon 23:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are sources both "confirming" and "denying" the precise content then I don't believe said content should be directly quoted. I do however think the alleged conversation is significant whether the f-word was exchanged or not, and therefore should be covered in the article. Additionally I believe that despite the denial, mention of the strong language is justified. 82.13.151.148 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I know Ron Dennis said they spoke firmly to each other. There couldn't be a clearer way of saying strong language was used.

Dennis would not reveal what transpired between himself and Hamilton over the radio as the session ended, but said: "I was quite firm on the radio, and he was reasonably firm back. We were both firm with each other. But that's life."

From [1]. --Don Speekingleesh 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I really think the word "fucking" should be removed from this article as I think people find it offensive and it's just hear-say he actally said it. The only people who know the truth is the McLaren team. It has to be media spin to make a good story more interesting and sell more papers, especially as the only people who know the truth are denying it was said. I'm trying to draw McLaren's attention to this artical to see what they say about it. (Sorry this is repeated from above but I didn't notice this discussion section before)Colin Clayton 20:02, 27 August 2007

I'm with you on the hearsay point, but as for it being offensive...Wikipedia is not censored. (See also: WP:PROFANITY) Majin Izlude talk 16:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, can someone who has access to the Autosport reference "McLaren dream team turns into nightmare - qualifying flash point" tell us exactly what it says with regards to the supposed media exaggeration of the Hamilton-Dennis exchange. If we have contradictory statements in the media - plus the McLaren denial - then I think its fair to not to include the "exact" transcript. Hammer Raccoon 12:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is the section of the article verbatim:

--Diniz (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated Diniz. Hammer Raccoon 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Lewis' defence against the alleged comments is trustworthy. Whether Dennis swore on not, I don't know, but he's quoted to have apologised; "What I said was 100% materially wrong", whatever that means. My opinion; Ron did, but Lewis didn't, use the F word. That's all ive been able to figure whilst being at McLaren... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.241.183 (talk) 19:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what we believe, I think we have reason to sanction the removal of the transcript, as there is enough here to cast doubt on whether the conversation panned out exactly as initially reported. The whole section will need to be worked on though - simply removing it won't do. I'll probably work on it tomorrow unless someone else fancies doing it. Hammer Raccoon 21:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the transcript should be removed. Whilst wikipedia is not a democracy I think a vote with reasons on the issue would be a good idea. I say this because an attempt to remove the transcript will undoubtedly be reverted, and I'd like clear consensus on the issue so that if an editor were to re-revert they wouldn't be in violation of 3RR; consensus would already be in place, thus the onus would be on the reverter to justify it.

In the meantime I have given the alonso/mclaren feud a separate section. I'm not sure if the current structure is the best solution, but his on track racing career and the soap opera surrounding it should be kept separate for the sake of the article's readability.BeL1EveR 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This still needs to be rectified, there is no point including a supposedly fake transcript which has been refuted by all those involved

129.12.228.63 08:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with the other editors on this who think the transcript should be removed. WP:PROFANITY clearly states that Wikipedia should not offend as long as the omission of the offensive content doesn't remove accuracy or relevance. As the veracity of the quote is disputed and can be perfectly well described using inoffensive language without direct quotes, then it should be removed and replaced with a suitable description of the alleged altercation. AJKGordon 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Quite apart from the profanity aspect, which doesn't bother me particularly, there is strong doubt as to whether the exchange took place or not. It has in fact been denied by all parties, in which case it shouldn't be there anyway. Bretonbanquet 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AJKGordon - "a suitable description of the alleged altercation". I can't remember exactly but I think the clarification that McLaren issued said something like 'things were said that Lewis regrets' or the equivalent of. i.e. he didn't swear but he was very rude. Mark83 18:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's excessive detail. Wikiquote is that way... Or, put it into the article about the race. This is supposed to be an overview of the man's career you know. Censorship has nothing to do with it, just a good sense of proportion. And you can f*cking quote me on that! --kingboyk 16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget his famous words that were said to Dennis: "Go f***ing swivel!" I can't believe some of his rudest comments and actions aren't on Wikipedia. SchumiChamp —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"youngest ever driver to secure an F1 contract"

The bit about "...thus making Hamilton the youngest ever driver to secure an F1 contract" seems inaccurate. Firstly, he signed alongside Wesley Graves, who is younger than Hamilton. Secondly, surely McLaren could have released him at some point along the way (as they did with Graves) so he hadn't actually secured an F1 contract as such, it was just an option. According to The Guardian Weekend supplement, 28 July 2007, Graves and Hamilton were splashed all over the newspapers when they signed to McLaren in 1998, so I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the article. --Jameboy 21:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would question the accuracy of The Guardian Weekend supplement's claim, insofar as if they were "splashed all over" the papers this would be quite easy to verify. That said I agree the youngest driver to secure an F1 contract is contentious. My understanding is that he's the youngest driver to be signed onto such a deal who has gone on to F1 as a direct result of that deal. I agree that this doesn't necessarily constitute the same thing. BeL1EveR 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Controversy section

So far we have Alonso saying there may be some team favoritism going on because Hamilton is British, and other F-1 drivers supporting the claims that Mclaren favors drivers despite their claims of not favoring one over another. Then we have the Stepenygate, where the Mclaren team have been found guilty of having illegal stolen documents from Ferrari that detail every aspect of their car. Then we have him calling the backmarkers " a bunch of monkeys" in his interview with Brundle, which had been talked about a lot in the online f-1 communities, and then we have this recent incident of him being craned back into the race at nurbergring in clear violation of FIA rules, yet not getting black flagged.68.187.117.71 09:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm leaning towards supporting the proposal, but think it should be left until the end of the season for three reasons:
1. Quotes can be more easily verified, reducing the risk of misquotes. This point is especially important for a biography on a living person.
2. The content would be subject to far less day-to-day change.
3. There will be more content to put into the new section. BeL1EveR 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what you've said. The major concern would mainly be with losing pertinent sources, particularly quotes of persons of interest to the given issues at hand. Instead of constantly changing material, it would be constantly adding material, as it would just be merely factual chronology of things to be trimmed down later. 68.187.117.71 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This user is Ernham. This is based on previous checkuser information. Also he likes editing Barack Obama as well and all this racial stuff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The recent heated exchange between Hamilton and Ron Dennis has been widely quoted and the Wiki article includes the supposed exchange of "F-words" between the two. However, recent reports indicate that the two didn't use f-words. See http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2651833,00.html In light of this, wouldn't it be incumbent upon us to remove the text pertaining to the "actual transcript"?

It's widely accepted to have happened, and if true it's far too significant to be removed. McLaren deny it happened and this is certainly worthy of inclusion, but deletion would be inappropriate unless there's a neutral, respected source verifying that they've HEARD the conversation and there was no swearing. If you can find one then by all means post it here and we can discuss removing it. 82.13.151.148 09:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/8/6615.html a recent press release from Hamilton through mclaren is saying it's the discussion is untrue—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.21.186 (talk • contribs) 14:09, August 10, 2007 (UTC).
http://www.lewishamilton.com/pressreleases/LewisHamilton-McLaren-Statement-09082007.pdf is the statement on Hamilton's website.
The team have investigated this claim and reviewed the radio transmissions and we can categorically confirm that Lewis did not use the “F word”
NB also separate F-word talk section below !
195.137.93.171 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, I know Hamilton is loved by lots of people as well as the FIA, but a lot of strange things have happened, possibly favouritism inside the team. Controversy & famous quotes - don't forget some of his quotes like "Go f***ing swivel!" (to Ron Dennis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Balance/neutrality

This article contains many quotes about the virtues of Lewis Hamilton, however there are increasingly hostile quotes from people of similar stature to those quoted in support of him, and until they are included it cannot be neutral. e.g.

  • L'Equipe "Dazzled by the precocious blooming of his protégé - who, it's true, has been genuinely impressive - Ron Dennis didn't pay attention to the omens. He ignored Lewis Hamilton's latent Machiavellianism; his already-highly developed political sense; his fake innocence."
  • Eddie Irvine makes a similar point "Lewis is playing a particularly polished and clever game when it comes to appearing cleaner-than-clean to the media but his arrogance is starting to come out now."[2]
  • Eddie Jordan told BBC Radio Five Live that Hamilton should recognise that what Alonso has brought to the team has helped him. "I believe McLaren is giving him [Hamilton] a car that's good enough because of what Alonso has brought to the team... so whether he likes to believe it or not, Hamilton has a benefit from Alonso being in the team."
  • The suggestion that Anthony Hamilton instigated the stewards enquiry should be noted if well enough cited - due to the damage it did to the team's WCC position.

These of course should be balanced by the argument that he has shown the ruthlessness needed in a champion. e.g. James Allen: "this is a steely ruthless racing driver, who has the ‘killer instinct’ that great champions in this sport must have."[3]

Another issue is the nature of Hamilton's entry to F1 should be explored further. It is unfair to compare Hamilton's results thus far with those of nearly any other debutant because of his entry into a top ranking team. That needs to be explained.Mark83 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the last point.
As for the bullet points themselves three of them aren't in context. Jordan said in the very same interview that he believes "Hamilton can be world champion and on current form you would have to say he would deserve it." What basis is there for saying Hamilton Sr instigated the investigation. We all saw the interview, and for me at no point did Lewis imply McLaren wanted to hold him up in Q3, what he he actually said was "you'll need to ask them what happened". Anthony said something along the lines of 'they need to sit down and look at what happened' (I have no source either, I'm trying to go from memory but there was a LOT to take in). However if that's largely true then to imply either Hamilton instigated the investigation is a very presumptious statement. Finally, L'equipe is a glamourised tabloid, not to mention the fact that the quote is a traslated quote of a writer of a newspaper article, as opposed to quoting a newspaper quoting someone of any standing in the sport.
Nonetheless I do accept the reasoning behind all your points, and in particular the one about the rarity of a rookie in a front running team. In response to the negative reaction,s it's important to remember that the praise he's received far outweighs the critism, and whilst the content itself could be changed, the balance appears correct to me. Taking this point further, if a praise & criticism section is created, and praise and criticism were to be given equal weight, this would be giving undue weight to his critics, whilst at the same time if praise were (this is an arbitary value) four times as long as criticism, there would be allegations of bias. It's a difficult one to call.
However, I would still strongly suggest that if there is to be any more praise/criticism added to the article that a "reception" section be created (feel free to improve the name). I say this as the Formula One section is unduly long already. BeL1EveR 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments.
As for the bullet points
  • (EJ quote), yes he did say he could be champion, but the Alonso contribution point stands.
  • As for Anthony Hamilton instigating it - I'm not talking about any public statements he made, I'm talking about reports that he went to the stewards - I've read that he 'asked around the paddock to see if a team member could object to his own team's actions'.
L'equipe point a good one. However as for fake innocence - the Eddie Irvine piece makes a similar point "appearing cleaner-than-clean".
I'm sure you noticed it, but I'd just like to stress again that I recognise the consensus that some of the "criticisms" are those needed in a champion, i.e. James Allen's points.
Finally, as for the removal of the tag - I disagree. As you say the rookie in a top team issue needs to be explained. Without it the entire 'reception' section is out of context. Mark83 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, but I've compromised: POV-section template for F1. I can't see any reason why the neutrality of the rest of the article would be disputed. BeL1EveR 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"from people of similar stature"
"It is unfair to compare Hamilton's results thus far with those of nearly any other debutant because of his entry into a top ranking team."
I'd hardly put someone like Eddie Irvine in the same class as the likes of Jackie Stewart. Neither he, nor teams managed by Eddie Jordan, have won a World Championship. And rookie Jacques Villeneuve was put into a Championship-winning car in 1996 (he won the following year), so it has happened before. -- Scjessey 12:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark- I'm not disputing that criticism should be on there. He's done a lot of good things, and he's done a fair few not-so-good things. I'm simply saying that the criticism currently on there is relatively insignificant (Jacques Villeneuve, widely discredited) in relation to the criticism and explanatory notes that SHOULD be be covered but aren't (public statements that weren't in the interests of the team, his stance on his relationship with Alonso compared with other people's views, explanation of the fact that most drivers don't start at top teams, etc). I completely agree that all these points should be covered; not having these issues raised detracts from the comprehensiveness of the article.

I apologise if my last post was interpreted as opposing the addition of criticism. However, I do maintain that to have more space devoted to criticism of Hamilton than praise is simply absurd, and would be giving undue weight to the negatives and events in three of his eleven races (Monaco, Germany/Europe, Hungary).

I haven't implemented any changes thus far, as I believe (in almost all cases on wiki) that it's more important that consensus is reached initially, than to make a disputed edit under the premise of being bold. So, in conclusion:

  • Do we need to create a new subsection for praise and criticism?
    • What should this section be called?
    • Is there any scope for leaving this until the end of the season, or would delaying further detract from the quality of the rest of the article?
  • What praise and what criticism should be included?
  • How long should this section be in total?

I'll leave the first four questions to be answered before I give my view, but I feel any section on praise and criticism should be shorter than a history section, regardless of how talked about a driver is. Hope this post has clarified my position. BeL1EveR 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't think you were opposing a criticism section. Sorry if I seemed to misinterpret you. I also agree the balance needs to tend more toward praise than criticism due to the actual volume of both so far. I agree as well that discussion about such a section is best - which is why I choose to go that way rather than have a blind stab at it by myself.
As for the specific questions:
  • "Reception" as per your suggestion seems OK to me.
  • Leave to end of season? I don't see a problem taking the quotes already in the article as well as a sample of the criticisms (including his role in Monaco controversy, Hungary controversy - both on track and radio).
  • What should be included and how long is a judgement matter. A consensus will quickly develop if too much/too little is included IMO. Mark83 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton and McLaren have issued a press release denying the F-word was used in team radio transmissions during qualifying for the Hungarian GP. Can this be removed unless we've explicit evidence to the contrary and can name the source please?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colin Clayton (talk • contribs) 07:43, August 10, 2007 (UTC).

Remove the transcript if you must, I mean, the three sources have slight contradictions anyway. However a mention of use of the F-word is important- it's almost universally accepted as having happened, if true it's VERY significant, and McLaren have to my knowledge provided no proof to the contrary. You may however add that Dennis and Hamilton deny swearing, citing the press statement. 82.13.151.148 09:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That was done yesterday. Mark83 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It's hard not to believe things your read in the media, but one source quite often quotes another incorrect source and it's taken as truth rather than speculation because it appears to come from so may different sources. Hamilton also denies his relationship with Alonso has broken down and they are still on speaking terms but that another story! Colin Clayton 08:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think some of the last bit is disputed, and I agree with Mark83's last original point. However, over time, some of this stuff might have to be removed, otherwise, this page (or rather the article) is going to become endlessly long - don't forget he's only just nearly finished his first season. Not before long, the F1 section, might have to be re-written completely. To do with the Alonso thing, we'll have to wait and see what happens in the upcoming weeks and at the Turkish GP, whether Hamilton and Alonso are talking or not. Davnel03 13:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I really think the word "fucking" should be removed from this article as I think people find it offensive and I find it hard to believe he actally said it. The only people who know the truth is the McLaren team. It has to be media spin to make a good story more interesting and sell more papers, especially as the only people who know the truth are denying it was said. I'm trying to draw McLaren's attention to this artical to see what they say about it.Colin Clayton 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Davnel03 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Controversies

I think his controversies should be put all together in a "Controversies" section, just as in F. Alonso's article —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIRed14.2 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for separating out stuff like that is usually that it will get lost in the description of a lengthy career - it's useful for Michael Schumacher, less so for Alonso, and my vote would be not to do it here (yet) after only one season. Other views? 4u1e 14:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Given that he has been critised by Webber and Vettel for his driving style in Fuji,[4] I would agree with 4u1e on this matter. Davnel03 15:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Not yet" is a fair enough argument - as his F1 career section is so small at the minute, there is no danger of the controversies getting lost. However there is no doubt that the section will grow (any driver fair, mostly fair, or plain bent will get tangled up in controversies), just this season he almost single-handedly instigated the FIA Monaco investigation, (allegedly) instigated the stewards inquiry at Hungary and provoked Alonso into the incident (although that doesn't excuse FA's stupidity), and he has been critcised by at least 4 drivers regarding his safety car driving in Japan and is the subject of a stewards enquiry. These could be explained in a controversies section more clearly than in the prose style of a season summary. Mark83 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He's been involved in more controversies in his first season than many pilots in their whole career. Plus many of his controversies have to do with Alonso's ones. That's why I suggested this :) DIRed14.2 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the controversies are intimately tied up with the way this season has panned out, but I won't violently object if anyone wants to split the controversies out. Try not to repeat stuff or make the article excessively long if you do go that way, though. This guy could have a 15 year career, and I doubt we could justify more than 50k or so of text to cover it! 4u1e 11:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Size is a big (no pun intended!) problem this article could get into. 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davnel03 (talk • contribs)
The current structure seems okay to me. Spygate has its own article, as do the controversial grand prix. Unless spygate proves to be significant in terms of McLaren or Hamilton's future (a driver leaving this season/Hamilton leaving the sport/McLaren banned in 2008... something of that magnitude) then in my opinion there's no current need to split it.
As for size I'll repeat what I've been saying for months; this season if it might be worthy of inclusion, let it remain until the season's over, (plus allowing a little bit of time for the dust to settle). Allowing content that you believe doesn't belong in the long term isn't an endorsement of the article in its current form or length. On the contrary, leaving arguably notable content allows us to cherry pick, with the added benefit of hindsight, the significant information. Resulting in a slightly long-winded but comprehensive section in the short term, and (hopefully) a concise, relevant and well written one in the longer term. BeL1EveR 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Middle name

I'm also sure that his middle name is 'Carl' (lots of newspaper profiles refer to his having been named after American athlete Carl Lewis). Unfortunately I can't find any official and authoritative source as yet. Sam Blacketer 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye out I guess. You'd presume it's out there. BeL1EveR 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection

I've requested that this page be semi protected until the end of the season due to the high level of vandalism. I'd like to request it indefinately but believe a 3 week request was far more likely to be accepted, and to be nearly as effective. BeL1EveR 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this off topic for Talk, but something odd: some of the recent vandalism edits trying to add words like 'ugly' 'immoral' and 'bad mannered' are coming from Mercedes-Benz Spain. (IP 195.235.246.33) Epsilonpilot 07:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to be a bit nosy but what did happen with all the vandalism herE??? RIPped 04:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a heated season and, well, apparantly people so love Alonso or Kimi that, obviously, vandalising Lewis' page will clearly cause their man to win. Plus apparantly one of the anti-Hamilton brigade of editors was doing so on his work computer which was at a mercedes building (They seem to hint at a dealership) to perform some of the editing, resulting in Mercedes issuing a reminder of its net policy to its staff. I've requested (and got) the Alonso page semi-protected for the end of the season due to the vandalism there too. I guess some people take a sport too seriously (And we all know that due to some random fluke Button will win. Honest. Why are you laughing?) Narson 04:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Karting gone?

Sorry to create a section a minute here, but what happened to his karting days? That's nearly ten years of his life, and is surely more relevant than the fact that his dad is an IT consultant, or that he went to school with Ashley Young. BeL1EveR 22:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Where born Hamilton ?

Village Tewin, Town and District Stevenage, County Hertfordshire, Region East, Country England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.69.188.127 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewin's not a city, it's nowhere near the West Midlands and dare I say it, England's not a country. Bretonbanquet 16:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I try to correct the inconsistents! Everson

Bretonbaquet, I agree to some extent with your changes here, but if England isn't a country, then what is it? Regards, Lynbarn 20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't changed anything, just made a comment. And England is not a sovereign country, surely there's no argument there? Bretonbanquet 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Read the first paragraph of England. Anyway that's nothing to do with Lewis Hamilton. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and England doesn't say it's a sovereign country, because it's not. No, it doesn't have anything to do with Hamilton. Bretonbanquet 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
To match the style of articles on other F1 drivers, I have changed the introduction to note that Stevenage is in Hertfordshire. Mentioning the UK was redundant because of the use of the term "British Formula One racing driver" in the same sentence. -- Scjessey 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm - I'm not so sure about the redundancy. The lead for Cliff Richard says he is an English singer - does that imply that Lucknow is in England? -- Ian Dalziel 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no direct comparison because Cliff Richard's birthplace is not included in the opening sentence of the article. Also, I'm pretty sure Sir Cliff's driving talent has yet to be properly recognized :-D -- Scjessey 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to express my opinion that this article is quite heavily biassed towards Hamilton's in McClaren's and Alonso situation.

It's very obvious to many that the opposite to what's implied in this article is true when it comes to McClaren favouring Hamilton over Alonso. Besides, it's obvious that a British company would want their brand-new-british-wonder-kid-on-the-block to be the world champion. It's understandeable and logical, considering that the much needed boost in F1 interest in the UK.

Alonso has clearly, openly and directly stated for several months now that his team (McClaren) favours Hamilton without reserves and that he has absolutely and openly no trust in his team and no desire to continue working with them (money and contract issues not withstanding).

This article makes it look like if Hamilton had been victor IN SPITE of McClaren's actions intead of FAVORED by McClaren's (and FIA) actions, minimizing his own faults (like the tyre break) or the favourable decissions of the FIA (to set back Alonso 5 places, allowing a tow truck to place his car back in track, not penalizing his unnecessary and unexpected "brake tests" on fellow drivers, etc) or his team decissions (to sabotage Alonson tyres etc).

In short, many see the situation of Hamilton the opposite that it's portrait in this article. Like that of a VERY HEAVILY favoured runner meant to be the next kid-wonder for publicity sake by McClaren boss (after all, he dates his daughter), instead of the poor boy who strugles against everyone, including his own team????, and still is soooo good that he is 3 points ahead at only one race from the title.

Great driver. Kool person. Wrong sided story in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.249.154 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Just a quick note to express my opinion"
It is fortunate, therefore, that Wikipedia articles tend not to reflect the opinion of individuals because they can be edited by anyone. When I read the article I see an unbiased presentation of referenced facts, and no evidence of the bias you evidently see. -- Scjessey 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a biased article IMO(vandalims notwithstanding). This is about the man not the team. As far as we know LH has avoided controversy wherever possible and has just got on with driving. His ability as a driver will tell over his whole career and cannot be judged at this stage - what is clear is how his presence at the top so quickly has excited emotional outbursts from many people including his team-mate. Does anybody seriously believe Mcclaren would have paid all that money to get Alonso if they had a secret plan to usurp him with a new british driver - come on? (Btljs 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
As for the last point - hiring Hamilton was a calculated risk, they knew he was a good driver but couldn't have dreamt he would end 1st or 2nd in the Championship. They had Alonso who was a proven race winner so if Hamilton tanked they wouldn't have been too badly off. It is only because Hamilton has actually been as fast/faster than Alonso that the question of favouritism has arisen - if Alonso had been consistently half a second faster every lap at every track then he would by default have been the Championship contender/de facto McLaren number 1. I guess what I'm trying to say is the allegations of preferential treatement such as Ron Dennis' "slip" in China should be mentioned. Mark83 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair point, Mark. And we should remember that Ron had a definite preference for Mika Hakkinen (personally) over David Coulthard, so it would be consistent in that sense. I do think it's possible to over-interpret the remark, though: it would be fairly natural to say what he said meaning only that the team was supporting Hamilton to beat Alonso in the same way that it (should be) supporting Alonso to beat Hamilton. 4u1e 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of this article mentioned @ autosport.com

also on www.f1total.com:

Telegraph too --h2g2bob (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting from page history

I did not find the above mentioned vandalized version of the page in the pagehistory, so I'm pretty sure, it was deleted - What is one of the most disgusting method of Wikipedia. (If not, I'm sorry.) --Ezsaias 06:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Perhaps there is one before, but the 12 Oct vandalim is just a small remark of the kind "is *** and *** his ***" 84.78.166.210 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton has preferential treatment in the mclaren-mercedes team. Hamilton is the prefer child for Ron Denis, and the other pilot Fernando Alonso, a pilot better than Hamilton, is being discriminated, because the team is sabotaging his car in each race. The team is not doing a fair treatment between fernando and hamilton. The FIA nor is doing anything to fix this situation, and help to the british pilot, in the Nurburgring race, hamilton was take to the road towed with help! this isnt fair but anybody in the FIA is worried about this...and benefits Hamilton all time, in other race the team order hamilton let alonso overtake him to have an extra classification lap and hamilton ignored the order... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonto (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh god...more of this Alonso fanboi junk. Why don't fans of both Alonso and hmailton suck it up. No driver /ever/ has a season taht goes perfect with no incidents, no retirements and constant podiums. Massivly complex machinery breaks sometimes. Or a human makes an error. As for the FIA, I seriously doubt Mosley has any love for Hamilton, considering his background. Narson 10:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Max Mosely could probably sue you for libel there, if you're implying that he is a racist, simply because his parents were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinUK (talk • contribs) 09:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton Controversys

Shouldn't there be a controversy section in Lewis's profile, considering all the talk surrounding his performance and treatment within the McLaren team and this season's championship.

Just a thought.

Taff1chikwavira 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the controversy is scattered among the rest of it, apart from the controversies surrounding his relationship with McLaren. The only controversies I can think of outside of the team issues are the crane issue at Hungary (which are mentioned) and the attacks on his starts by other drivers (And former champion Jacques Villeneuve) for being too agressive, and according to Villeneuve, too much like schumacher...oh...and the whole driving erratically behind the safety car...ok, the more I type on about this, the more I am inclined to agree that there is enough there for a section. Narson 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider whether we really need controversy sections for all drivers. There's one in Michael Schumacher's article because, looking at his career as a whole, he was involved in multiple championship-deciding incidents that made news worldwide. In Hamilton's case, I agree that the McLaren-Ferrari and Alonso-Hamilton feuds are very notable, but there's a separate section for that already.
The other stuff is really only the usual background level of bitching that goes on all the time - it's just that in the environment of this season the minutest error, perceived error or minor disagreement gets magnified to gargantuan proportions: Hamilton may have made a mistake behind the safety car, but that's not unusual, particularly for a rookie; Villeneuve criticised his starts, but did anyone else? My recollection is that drivers (de la Rosa?) refuted them. Did it ever come up again during the season?; Hamilton was legally returned to the track (at Nurburgring, wasn't it?) as his car was in a dangerous position - slightly unusual, yes, and it seems to have upset some fans, but is it controversial in the context of an entire career (or even an entire season) especially since he didn't score any points anyway?
Don't get me wrong, Hamilton made quite a few mistakes during the season, most notably in the final two races, but surely those should be covered in the 'Racing history' section? I don't think there's much here that we'll remember even by next year. 4u1e 13:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Personally I am starting to feel that this Hamilton profile is not an accurate record as there are so many things left out and it seems people are content with just positives and no negative (don't get me wrong I am not saying let's slag off Hamilton) we need to have both sides of the coin represented. I fully understand and appreciate that the Hamilton controversies are just from one season and may be forgotten in time but that does not deny them as fact at the moment nor do we know if we will remember all the GOOD stuff that Hamilton has done so far this season. All other drivers have a controversy section and its just as well that we start building the Hamilton section.

Just another thought.

Taff1chikwavira 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is not to have only positive stuff, but to have only stuff that is actually controversial in a section called controversy. Hamilton hasn't done very much controversial himself this season: He's criticised a double world champion team-mate and been critical of his own team on occasion. He didn't let Alonso past in Hungary qualifying. He may have been responsible for the concertina crash in Japan. I can't take Villeneuve's comments seriously, I'm afraid - I just don't feel they were based on fact, and as I say, I think he was very much a lone voice on that one. And that's about it - I just genuinely don't see that there's anything earthshatteringly controversial there. What have I missed?
On the other hand, Hamilton did in the end make several big mistakes over the season - Tyres at Nurburgring and Fuji. Running off-track on the first lap in Brazil. The sort of thing that Jackie Stewart says a champion ought not to do. 4u1e 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
(P.S. All other drivers do not have a controversy section. Schumacher has one, rightly I feel, because he was so often reported as being controversial - seriously controversial, as in multiple accusations of cheating. (That's not to say I believe the accusations, btw). Alonso also has a controversy section, but there's little of any real controversy in it. My vote would be to ditch the entire current contents of that one too. The only thing about Alonso that is worth reporting as controversial (IMHO!) is his extraordinary willingness to very strongly, openly and repeatedly criticise his team during this season. That is genuinely unusual, notable and possibly controversial. It is not made so by whether or not you agree with him.4u1e 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Lois Hamilton Romance

Lois Hamilton has been observed in Hamilton, Ontario dating a Hugo Boss employee. Hugo Boss is one of his main sponsors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.62.97 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just juvenile vandalism. Along the lines of 'tee hee, I said penis on the internet'. Narson 09:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM - PLEASE LOCK!

Someone has vandalised already, first line.

R

Roz P 89 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the analysis/review of Brazilian GP in this article?

Is that really necessary? Does it not belong more appropriately to the Wiki Page on the 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix AjAxed 04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the race recap is here, the fact that Hamilton said to La Presse (and the same information was also relayed to pitpass.com by an unnamed source) that the gearbox problem was caused by him accidentally hitting the button for the start procedure should be mentioned here, despite McLaren denials (however, those denials should be mentioned as well). McLaren has an interest in protecting the reputation and market value of its drivers, and should not be considered an unbiased source here. http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071022220432.shtml 128.214.9.63 14:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be in with some kind of caveat making sure its clear that its disputed in nature. Narson 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Especially since Hamilton's family apparently deny he has ever talked to the paper (see here). How likely is it that he made this unique revelation only to a French-language Canadian paper, rather than a British or Brazilian one? Sadly, newspapers are often quite happy to make things up, and even when they have got some basis for claims tend not to report accurately. If you think I'm being excessively cynical, try to remember the last occasion you saw a newspaper article on something you really know about yourself from first hand experience (therefore not F1 for most of us). Were you impressed with the accuracy of the reporting? I never have been. 4u1e 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Et voila!. And having read M. Domenjoz's biography of Michael Schumacher, I ain't all that impressed with his journalistic skills anyway. 4u1e 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_Hamilton/Archive_2&oldid=1136903753"