Talk:Lewis Hamilton

no of pole positions?

Lewis has had 13 pole positions to date not the 14 stated at the start of the article. 6 in 2007 & 7 in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P8rsn (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton is also one of the few drivers to have never retired on the track. Arvindv8 (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But then he's only had a very short career to date. And wouldn't China 07 count? The pit lane is formally part of the track. 4u1e (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting hairs over "on track", but it counts as a retirement. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps 'mechanical retirement' was meant? Rather than driver error? Though I can't see why it is really relevent anyway, it is just a matter of the car not the driver. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It does say something about the driver. Perhaps not a lot...but some drivers are EZ on their cars, some not. Senna had a way of breaking them, Prost went EZr (IMO, anyhow), & FWI read, Fangio was especially sensitive. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NOT a forum

Just a reminder, this talk page is not a forum for discussion about Lewis Hamilton's victory, it is to discuss improvements to the article. I have removed two praising comments due to this policy.88.105.14.137 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a spoilsport. Some people are understandably very happy about Lewis Hamilton's wonderful victory and may wish to make comments along the lines of FUCK YEAH !!!!!! Hamilton is WORLD CHAMPION !!! - live and let live, my friend. PS. Try making an account. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have an account, I just couldn't be bothered to sign in to make one edit... As mentioned below, it's not a case of whether people are happy or not, they need to find the right places to express their opinions (it's very sad that Glock's page has had to be protected due to abusive edits). Lethesl 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That editor may be anonymous, but he's absolutely right. Keep the fan rubbish in the forums. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand if the entire talk page gets overtaken by crap, but to be honest its better on the talk page than in the article - and this is going to die down within 24 hours. Anon IPs are blocked from editing the article and as long as it is nothing offensive then it does no harm - it's not as if wikipedia is short of storage. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion will be removed. We don't care if people are happy or pissed off, it will all go. There's no real discussion about it, it's policy. The359 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone else who wishes to debate the removal of "cheering", discussion of Wikipedia's policy regarding off-topic discussion on talk pages can made at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Talk:Lewis Hamilton is not the proper area for complaining about policies. The359 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Removed -The359) ...but I really don't see why you have to push your point, and I really don't like you deleting my comments. There are numerous personal comments in so many damn articles, as long as no one oversteps the mark then what is the issue? (Removed -The359) Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring policy is "overstepping the mark". You've been warned repeatedly. You've been told where to discuss this. You chose to ignore it. And for that, your WP:DICK comments will be removed. This is becoming trolling quite quickly, and it will go to WP:ANI next. The359 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you believe that there is bias in articles then you are free to remove that bias. This page, or any other page on Wikipedia is not a forum. If you're happy, cool, but don't attack editors for wishing to keep this page on the article alone. Apterygial (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - maybe I did go a little overboard, and I could/should have put a comment on my userpage instead of here. The attitude pissed me off though. I don't like people removing my comments, I find that highly rude. I find it rude that people can quote wikipedia guidelines at me, but blatantly ignore other guidelines. Does 3RR apply to talk pages? Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it probably does. But I don't think we want to go down that route. Apterygial (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm annoyed with the attitude of the other editor. If I had been given a simple request to reword or remove my comment, I would have done so. Instead I had someone quoting policy at me and templating my talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What part of off-topic is hard to understand? This has absolutely nothing to do with Lewis Hamilton or his article. Take it elsewhere. The359 (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What part of 3RR is equally hard for you to understand? On a side-note try using a touch of tact/manners and perhaps people will respond to your requests with a little less reluctance. You could have asked me to remove the comments and seeing as it means so damn much to you, I would have probably removed them. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you feel I have violated 3RR, feel free to report it. You may do so here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. However, "he was mean, so I'm just going to be a WP:DICK" will never fly. Take this discussion to User Talk pages or Administration Noticeboards. Not here. The359 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, opinions noted. This discussion is simply going round in circles and there is little point continuing it. Why don't we get back to stopping IPs from saying the race was "like Hollywood" on the Brazilian GP page? Apterygial (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Career Summary Table

The career summary table lists Lewis as having driven in 17 races this season, that should of course be 18 races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hscbaj (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It already lists 18 races. (Moved discussion to the bottom). Apterygial (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it still lists 17. Career Summary table. Do a text search for "Career summary" on the article, second occurance, bottom row of the table reads "2008 Formula One Vodafone McLaren Mercedes 22 17 7 5 98 1st", where the 17 reflects races, that should say 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.76.152 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. It really isn't hard to change it yourself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong one. Apterygial (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life: Dating Nicole Scherzinger

Lewis Hamilton started dating the lead singer of the UK girl band, Pussycat Dolls. The 2008 World Champion announced that he was dating Nicole Scherzinger early on in the 2008 season. She was in the McLaren garage when Lewis won the FIA Formula 1 Driver's World Championship 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyorkshire (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought the pussycat dolls were American? 123.255.22.2 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but surely easier to copy and paste this.

I think Adamyorkshire knows that. Including the above sentence in the article would most likely result in an immediate revert. If you can phrase it better, Adamyorkshire, and if the keepers of the sacred page of Hamilton will let you add it, I guess it could go in there. Apterygial (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be an instant revert?

Hello, unsigned. Because the grammar is a little clumsy, and on pages like this the focus tends to be on his racing career, how he got to his racing career, and how fast he goes on public roads. Apterygial (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail? racial abuse section

Do we really need all the specific details in the "racial abuse" section? Does this article benefit by including specific insults thrown at Lewis Hamilton? Unfortunately I am sure many high profile people of various ethnic groups have been insulted but I don't see many wikipedia articles going into specific details about the expressions used. --mgaved (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

curious to see theres no "controversial" section on this article,but a full record set, yet a ridiculous inexistant "racial abuse" section..funny.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.214.88.166 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Points over two seasons

The Times has helpfully made this tally: "...none of his detractors can dispute his right to be champion. It is not just that he has finished on top of the standings this year — he has proved the most consistent driver over his first two seasons in the sport. He has a points haul of 207, which puts him 16 ahead of Massa, 22 in front of Kimi Raikkonen and 37 of Fernando Alonso. Those who question his calibre should chew on that." It would be nice to fit that in somewhere, but where? Any suggestions? Malick78 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't go in. It's hardly balanced and it smacks of stats being manipulated in an irrelevant way in order to prove a point. The championship isn't run over two seasons, and Alonso didn't even have the same car over the two seasons, so the stat is flawed. Also, this would open up the article for other stuff which can be cited, like Hamilton only winning the championship because Massa's car broke down in Hungary. Etc etc etc. Until Hamilton spends a season or two driving a Renault or a BMW or something, people can always question his calibre.

Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that it shouldn't go in, it IS a valid statistical comparison and demonstrates the sheer scale of his achievement - particularly if you rank the results in a vertical format and remind yourself of both Raikkonen's and Alonso's previous World Championship successes:

HAMILTON = 207 (World Champion 2008) MASSA = -16 RAIKKONEN = -22 (World Champion: 2007) ALONSO = -37 (World Champion: 2005 & 2006)

Equally the scale of Felipe Massa's achievements -over the same two years- is also amply demonstrated!

91.110.201.144 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not valid to compare Alonso. Simple fact. The fact that the others have been champion before is also not relevant to anything. I think a comparison of mechanical failures would be more valid, then we could see easily how Hamilton needs a car that never goes wrong in order to win a championship. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But to quote Ron Dennis in today's "Daily Mirror" : "If you look at the statistics, Lewis has won more points, more races and more podiums in the last two years than any other driver." Using two year figures or not, that is one incredible achievement by him. 91.110.215.185 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So, that's two sources offering commentary on his first two years as an F1 driver. This does start to look notable - in other words, it seems like it would be worth commenting on in the article. What do other editors think? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Ron Dennis is a long way from unbiased. Anyway, it's still not a valid statistic - it's never been a valid statistic before, so why now? He can't be compared to anyone else because no-one else has driven a McLaren for the last two years. So with no-one to compare to, it's not balanced or helpful in any way. We can't just add random stuff like this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really notable. Since he's driving for McLaren, it's a safe bet he'll have more than most. Now, if he'd had more than Jim Clark, or Ayrton Senna, or John Y. Stewart in their first 2yrs.... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He's had more points in his first 2 years than in senna's first 4...first 6 years of jim clark and jackie stewart and for good measure the first four of schumacher, if you were trying to make a point could you please explain what it was?--82.42.150.196 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparing stats in that way is beyond ridiculous. Different points systems, fewer races - the comparison is meaningless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, doesn't mean anything, because Alonso's car was rubbish for 70% of this season. It might also be valid to say that Hamilton and Massa have had more crashes that Alonso (I think). YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If it represents anything it represents the reliabilty of the McLaren, not Hamilton. So not this page, but maybe McLaren... Apterygial (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, how flawed a stat is that? Nothing in it is fair. First of all, all of the cars varied throughout the season, let alone in the season itself. Secondly, this does not take into account mistakes of the team and unforced crashes by certain drivers (Hamilton taking Kimi Raikonnen out in the pit lane after he failed to see the red light?). Thirdly, Hamilton HAS NOT proved anything, he hasn't. Schumi, Alonso, Now even Vettel have all proved a lot in helping a team develop and win the championship, when Hamilton arrived the car was amazing, he had to drive is all. This brings to mind Rubens Barichello, who finished second to Schumi some seasons in a good Ferrari, fell away, then want to Brawn GP, and got good again simply due to the car. 86.173.53.214 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Early life

It was easy to find out about his early life on the internet, so why don't you people who are interested in this article put it in? Don't ask me to do it, because YOU should do it.--andreasegde (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what you can do. Why should "we" do anything? It's not "our" article. If you want something in there, get your editing pants on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly interested not only in the article, but in his early life as well. That's what great about Wikipedia, you don't tell people to do stuff, you do it yourself. Apterygial (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Hamilton is the first driver of black heritage to compete in Formula One (although Willy T. Ribbs tested an F1 car in 1986[80]) and the first driver of black heritage to win a major race at Indianapolis Motor Speedway in any discipline. In addition, he is the third youngest driver to achieve an F1 pole position, and the fourteenth F1 driver to achieve a podium finish on his debut.

Remember Indian Narain Karthikeyan not so many years ago? Schumi4ever (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh lawks. Thing is, 'black' is a very, very vague term. Many definitions of 'black' refer to people with Sub-saharan African heritage. Karthikeyan is from a completely different background. It's just one more reason why it's all very silly. <shrug> 4u1e (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton lost 2007 championship by pressing the wrong button

http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/arkisto.shtml/arkistot/f1/2007/10/573957 Finnish news inform, that Hamilton admitted, that he pushed the wrong button and caused the car to slow down, and therefore lose the championship. Shortly after the lead of McLaren claimed that this wasn't true.

Add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.223.194 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to find a reference in English before it would even be considered. Apterygial (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.f1technical.net/news/7518 --88.114.223.194 (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, Hamilton, McLaren and Luc Domenjoz, the reporter who broke this story, all said afterwards that it was not true. The F1technical.net piece is unattributed, but most likely links back to Domenjoz's original piece. 4u1e (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See here for a previous discussion on this. More directly, see this link 4u1e (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For example the leading Finnish F1 news informed, that Hamilton first said that he pushed a wrong button, then Dennis claimed he didn't; at this point Hamilton still said he did, but after a day he claimed that he didn't. Seemed like a way to hide the fact that Hamilton ain't a too experienced F1 driver; probably just McLaren not wanting people to discuss it so, that everyone knows that Hamilton lost due his shaking hands. --88.114.223.194 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that no one would guess that Hamilton was inexperienced, based on his F1 record? That's a novel viewpoint, but we can include this in the article, if a reliable source says so. But we need a source saying that he changed his story and attributing the error to inexperience. If you have a reliable source saying this in Finnish (and it's not clear from your post whether you do) please provide a translation for us. Having read the autosport link provided by 4u1e, this is a non-issue. Effectively the author has admitted that he's not a reliable source in this case:-

“

However, Domenjoz yesterday admitted that he did not talk to Hamilton and explained that he relied on information he heard in conversation with other journalists, who in turn were quoting what Hamilton had supposedly said to his engineers. The highly respected Frenchman further explained that he was under deadline constraints and did not have a chance to verify the information with Hamilton himself or with McLaren.

”

Case closed, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is only one of the reporters that reported this, the others never said that they didn't check their sources or anything. The Finnish wikipedia has information about this at the moment, if any Finn would like to check it. It informs that Hamilton said in an interview that he pressed the wrong button, but shortly after both Dennis and Hamilton said that he didn't. --83.245.231.167 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(The point is that many other news outlets re-ran Domenjoz's original story without checking it either. There's a very high probability that the unattributed piece given above is one of these. We'd need to find an attributed story (i.e. someone is willing to put their name to it) claiming this, and also check that it wasn't subsequently withdrawn. I really think this is a non-story. 4u1e (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Finnish Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. If you want to change the article, provide a reliable source. If the source isn't in English, provide a translation. I think that pretty much covers it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.skunk0001.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/hamilton_button.avi here's a video that shows Hamilton pressing the wrong button and then his speed dropping down critically instantly after it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.231.167 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of audio from Hamilton along the lines of "Oh no, I've pressed the wrong button and caused the start sequence to kick in" how do you know that was the "wrong button"? Yes, he does seem to press a button as he turns into the corner, but then drivers do that, to alter various settings on the car. Personally, I find it slightly hard to believe that McLaren have put a button right by the driver's left thumb that if pressed will stop the car; that's just a little bit risky. A more sensible, and rather more likely, solution would be to activate the car's start sequence by a combination of button presses. 4u1e (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Me or 83.245? I'm speculating too, but (I hope) only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the evidence. ;-) 4u1e (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, had one level too many indents. I was referring to the video evidence. It sucks as a wikiref. A great example of why we are so lucky in F1 to have so many third party sources available. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Or audio from the engineers saying, "You berk, you've switched it off!" ;D

Fast forward to end of 2008 season

On the subject of video, tho, I'd like to see some video of his pass of Timo to settle the ongoing controversy here over whether Lewis was let thru. The angle on ITV made it look like Timo'd broken; I wonder if a shot from Lewis or Vettel might not show Lewis just got much better traction on inters. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have trouble with that. The best we can do is what Glock and Hamilton said after the race and the footage we have from ITV and the Formula One website. We really have to, as has been said at the Glock page, assume that it was accidental, Glock slid off the racing line. Even mentioning as possible fact that it was on purpose is a very serious charge, and not one that Wikipedia can or ever should get away with making. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Acctually there is nothing against the FIA rules in letting someone else past you AFAIK, only if your team orders you to do it over the radio. Though there is likely a disrepute rule. But yes, we can only go on what was said (And remember that he was on dry tires in the wet....it is difficult enough doing high speed corners with a 100bhp road car with intermediates in the wet....) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a serious charge not because it is against the letter of the law but because it reeks of fixing the GP in favour of Hamilton. To accuse Glock of that opens the Wiki up to a justifiable libel lawsuit from Glock or Toyota, besides which, what's the point of letting people through? It's the last corner of the season, you are not going to win anyway, and at least by staying on the racing-line you have to chance to block or hold your position. (Incidentally, 4u1e makes a good point at the Glock talk page if anyone wants a good explanation). Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

<--I should, perhaps, clarify (a persistent need... ;D ). By "see", I don't mean here, just get another view from somewhere & confirm Timo did lose traction or did get outpaced by Lewis & Sebastian who didn't. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need confirmation? It's a no-brainer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For you, maybe. I guess I'm falling into the eyewitness problem of not believing it unless I see it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I understand what visible phenomena you are looking for. Glock very clearly had no grip, and the times of both Toyotas were chronically slow in all three sectors, backing that up. They were the only two cars still on dry weather tyres. I think it's beyond clear. What else do you want to see? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 3

I've archived al talk up until the Brazil Grand Prix. I've attempted to avoid cutting off ongoing discussions, but if you are desperate to carry on a discussion, you can restart it, or retrieve it using the links in the archive section at the top of the page. Apterygial (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

controversies

this article needs a controversies senction. Alonso's and Schumacher's article have it and Hamilton has created more controversies than the 2 of them put together. Loosmark (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? All his controversial stuff is covered in the article and he hardly has a long history of being a controversial driver (Or a long history at all). Honestly? Alonso's artile needs a lot of work, prbably moving the controversies into the main text a long with what records are acctually, well, worth mentioning (A lot of he records arn't even records) --Narson ~ Talk • 17:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, unless Hamilton has been chucked out of the world championship for driving someone else off the track, then he's not even got close to the kind of controversy Schumacher generated. The controversy section in the Alonso article is a big mistake, in my view. I'd also note that Controversy sections are going very much out of favour with reviewers, so it's not necessarily a great idea to have one. I've recently removed a very similar section from the Damon Hill article as part of the lead up to its current FAR. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Damon Hill's article had a controversy section? That really is difficult to fathom. But yes, I think with schumy there is a case for a sectio of prose focused on his controversial nature. Alonso is annother F1 page that needs a good trim up. Really not a good example for how to write an F1 page --Narson ~ Talk • 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not controversy exactly, but a 'rivalry with MS' section. Similar. 4u1e (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________

I dont get why Hamilton's controversies arent getting listed in WIKIPEDIA? I would like to hear a reply on this one :-) I guess he had a dq for Aus 2009 and Also his team was handed a suspended ban after Malaysia 2009 for HIS ACTIONS.

Your question is pretty much answered directly above. If you think there's important information missing from the article, then add it in yourself. But be sure to retain a neutral point of view. DH85868993 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a section, if anyone remembers the race where he was relifted into the race by a crane and no one else was? Thats a pretty big deal rite? I cant add it as I dont know all the computer talk and things like that, but ask if someone would.

There are controversies about Hamilton's career, but that's not one of them. The other cars didn't keep their engines running and (at that time) it was not illegal for a car to be returned to the circuit under those circumstances. Other things, like Australia 2009, are genuinely controversial and did generate significant coverage, but should be dealt with in the main text not cherry picked out into a 'let's slag off Hamilton' section. 4u1e (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In over 50 years of Formula 1 championship I don't remember any other car being "craned" back to track. Whatever it was technically illegal or no is irrelevant, the thing was quite controversial. how do you know that the other driver wouldn't have tried to keep the engine running had they been aware of the possibility of the being craned back.  Dr. Loosmark  16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Things are not automatically controversial because they haven't happened before. However, my response above missed the point. Controversies go in if there is substantial coverage of them as such in reliable sources, which does not include fan forums. So if I'm wrong in my recollection and there was significant coverage of the craning as being controversial, then yes it should go in. Such incidents shouldn't go in separate controversy sections, but be integrated into the main text. 4u1e (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think there is a case that Hamilton is a controvery free driver, come on. First of all 4ule, he has ran someone off the track, he did in to Felipe Massa three years back I think. I cannot remember the exact race but it was first conrner, puched off, wheel disloged, end of race for the title competitor. Not to mention the crane, which is undoubtedly a controversy, so come on, I think we can all agree this section is necessary Malkitas (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Readability change..

A simple readability change:

"At the Japanese Grand Prix Hamilton took pole in qualifying, with a fastest lap of one minute 18.404."

Request that this be changed to:

"At the Japanese Grand Prix Hamilton took pole in qualifying, with a fastest lap time of 1:18.404."

This is much easier to read, and is in the standard format for lap times. Daneel (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and change it. This is really a minor edit, not one you need to seek consensus on. Apterygial (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. The page is semi-protected, so I wasn't able to edit it previously. Daneel (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Black Britons category

He is a mulatto, who is often referred to as black. Does he qualify for the above category? Of the other biography articles on Wikipedia of mulattoes, some are in the category and others are not. Is the category intended to apply to mulattoes, or only to people who are full-negro? Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Mulatto? Full-negro? Welcome to the 21st century. --MJB (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What MJB said. Mulatto is not a term I've ever heard used in the UK, I suspect it would prompt some very strange looks, if not outright offence, if used here. Ditto "full negro". You'd have to go and ask on the talk page for the category to get an answer to your question, but since Hamilton is often referred to as 'black', and has referred to himself as such, and is British, it doesn't seem inappropriate. 4u1e (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

At best, 'mulatto' is questionable, at worst it's offensive. It's generally a Hispanic word and as often as not it's pejorative. 'Full negro' would possibly get you killed in the UK if used at the wrong place and the wrong time. As far as the category point is concerned, it seems appropriate though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has the official British term British Mixed-Race. Guess it depends if Lewis Hamilton identifies as black, then that category is qualified. Sources.. --Pudeo⺮ 11:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I'd like to propose adding a link to http://www.thesportscampus.com/20081216255/articles/sportspersons-of-the-year

The website puts him in an excellent league of extraordinary performers for the year 2008 and gives accurate and adequate mileage to him in the story. Arjwad (talk)20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected?

There is a semi-protection template in the article. However, when I click "edit", there is no message saying "This article is semi-protected so that only established users may edit it". I could remove it, but I do not know if that will be okay. Is it fine if I (or someone else) could remove that template? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The log shows that the article should still be semi-ed. If the template was there and the page was not protected a bot would have come to remove the template. Apterygial 10:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you click "edit" yet? It doesn't say that it is semi-protected and doesn't say the red log thing either. This is weird. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't read the log right. The block expired on the 27 of December. Sure, removed the template. Apterygial 10:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Racial abuse

Wikipedia's articles are should not included a racial abuse by the editor, i guess it is better to removed them. What the good point that we can get from them? Bulukan (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean? It's not clear from what you have written. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

- Well I just wanted to ask whether the picture was necessary or right to use at this point; these people arent abusing Hamilton Racially They are merely abusing him (maybe Alonso supporters, Red Bull supporters, anyone he might have overtaken in that races supporters?) and I think that the fact that it has been placed next to racial abuse implies that it was racist. The racist abuse he has suffered has been from men in black masks calling him derogatory names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.228.154 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, its like putting a photo of a doberman next to a rottweiler reference, they are similar, and basically have the same effect (violent and often gaurd dogs of a certain colour) however thats not the accuracy Wikipedias about.

Taking the photo off is a good idea Malkitas (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Lewis Hamilton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article has big issues that need to be urgently addressed.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is poor, perhaps 4/10. Many sections are messy, particularly the personal life and 2008 seasons. Many stubby sentences shoved in whithout care or attention, and some sections written in atrocious prose. Major copyedit urgently required.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Some of the online references are inproperly formatted, and there seems to be a paucity of references in some of the newer information.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Seem to be stretching NPOV in his favour, although this is probably a result of the prose problems outlined above.

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns.) Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Reworked sections for 2008 season and personal life, moving on to rechecking 2007 season and checking for PoV-Chaosdruid (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reworked all apart from the "Records" section and after --Chaosdruid (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Big improvements, I have no problem passing this article for GA immediately. Very nice work. (As a minor note, try not to address the subject as "Lewis" in the article: its usual in bibliographies to use the surname rather than the first name when referring to someone unless there is a particular need to disambiguate in a sentence (i.e. between Lewis and his father).--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

The Article names Lewis as Lewis Carl Hamilton and cites page 33, line 3 of his autobiography (which I take to mean "My story" ISBN 978 0 00 727005 7) as the source.

This book actually confirms Lewis's full name as "Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton" - Davidson being his Paternal Granfather's name.

I suggest a change accordingly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.195.139 (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the info

At the moment, as I do not have the book, I cannot confirm that. His official website gives his name as Lewis Carl Hamilton, so we will have to do some more research or get someone with a copy to confirm. I'll post a request on the F1 portal to see if anyone has it

cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It got caught up in a vandalism revert in January, judging from history. Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Confirmed, changed and referenced. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Headline photo

Regarding the main photo, it was said a year ago that this photo of him was too stressed, but the section discuss the photo has been removed. I think he should have a photo where he is more relaxed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianhat10 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

he doesn't look stressed to me. Loosmark (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Length

We can't be writing 350+ words for every single race, or else this article will be miles long in a few months. China 09 wasn't even a particularly notable race for Hamilton - a couple of sentences will do. Suggest a bit of pruning. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably suggest waiting until all the excitement dies down before you prune it back, you'll be fighting a losing battle until then. Apterygial 09:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Too true. I've cut it back quite a bit, there was probably more detail there than at the race article. Suggest the editor who wrote it all tries his/her hand at the race articles, where such detail is more appropriate :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Aquaplaning

I suggest that Loosmark reverts to the referenced edit that clearly states that Hamilton was suffering from aquaplaning. Or perhaps he could say here just exactly why he doesn't believe it, rather than continue reverting referenced edits. Hamilton's tyres were worn, he suffered from aquaplaning, hence he spun a lot. What is there not to believe? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion in line with section above. Do we really need these details? It's okay to mention that he suffered some incidents which dropped him down the line, but this can be stated without actually analyzing the incidents. ^LeaveSleaves 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the thing is, his spins marked the race for him and it's important to say why he spun. You can't say he spun a lot without saying why, and I believe the spins were notable. Loosmark seems to think he spun through driver error, maybe he'd like to find a cite for that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

and i suggest you stop suggesting me what should i do. there is no prove that Hamilton really aquaplaned he's only claiming so. he could have as just hit a painted white line a kerb or just applied too much throttle. Kovalainen in exactly the same car did not spin even once while Hamilton had a couple of those. Loosmark (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Like you, I can suggest what I like. You think each spin was driver error? He's hardl;y noted for spinning off so often during wet races, and it's well documented that he's hard on his tyres. They were worn, he aquaplaned. If you want to remove all driver-quoted references from all articles due to the idea that "they might be lying", I'd like to see you try. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

i'm not against the drive-quoted reference you inserted but you have to rephrase it that he blamed the spins on aquaplaning or sth like that. btw regarding aquaplaning: i don't think that when the water comes under the flat bottom of the car it really matters that much if your tyres are worn or not. the car is lifted and you just slide. (but of course the worn tyres might have caused him to have understeering problems). Loosmark (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Spookily, I just had the same idea, and I've just done exactly that. Aquaplaning is more likely with worn tyres as there is less tread to disperse the standing water on the track. The tyres then skate over the water rather than disperse it, and grip is lost. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, now the section is fine. Loosmark (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are the mentions of Lewis XXX? Wiki fatally flawed fan fluff

Where is mention of the allegations Hamilton threaned to quit Mclaren? Where is the mention of the Mechanics now, according to several sources, being upset with Hamilton for both threatening to quit the team and the scapegoating of a team member. Why does this wiki repeatedly use bogus terminology that's favorable to hamilton instead of stating the facts at hand, like where it says Hamilton "had to cut the chicane to avoid hitting kimi" when in fact the reason he was punished was because he used his cutting of the chicane to gain an unfair advantage over Kimi, not that he cut the chicane. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And it's not the first time he's pulled this "I'm gonna quit routine". Remember the Vattle/Webber crash in rain in '07? He was saying the same stuff. Quite the habit he is forming.66.190.29.150 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The article overall seems very biased towards Hamilton, including excessive detail about every race or achievement, using the editor's own judgment about impressiveness and the like (even when sources are included), and omitting negative facts towards him. I think it fails to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. Jcpetruzza (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Censorship at Wikipedia?

On the section racial abuse of this article, it is included that there is a website (pinchalaruedadehamilton) that seems to have racial insults. I added other websites where it shows that Hamilton is as well racially abused but have been censored several times using very different senseless excuses. E.g., last reason: "forum comments do not deserve to be included here", that is what pinchalaruedahamilton is and IT IS INCLUDED HERE. After which I have been threatened to be banned

Very "encyclopedic". Please, what are the reasons for not including it? If it is a British or English site is not worthy to be here, but if it from everywhere else it is?

What is been censored from this article without a proper excuse:

"Even though not appearing in the British media, there are as well English websites with anti-Hamilton comments, such as the "Lewis Hamilton Sucks Forum" that include racial insults. In his TimesOnline Blog, Ed Gorman (The Times F1 correspondant) is also criticized for racial abuse in an article about Lewis Hamilton by some of the blog posters"

--Ajrs (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't see why random blog comments are worthy of mention at all, else every article about a celebrity on Wikipedia would be a mess. At first I admit I wondered if it was just an excuse to put the phrase "Hamilton [...] is a ***** ****" in the article.

Secondly, I checked the Ed Gorman article and I don't see any "racial abuse" in it whatsoever, nor any accusations of such in the comments (not from a quick skim anyway).

The reason "pinchalaruedadeHamilton" may be considered notable is that (per the article) it "was featured in the British media", ie: there are reliable, third-party, published sources.

Lastly, if you think you're right, but everybody else thinks you're wrong, consider the possibility that you may be wrong. Cheers, BEVE (talk)  18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Forum comments do not constitute as sources, period. As for inclusion of one hate site and not others, please provide secondary reliable sources that signify a particular website and it can be considered for inclusion in the article. The website currently included received substantial news coverage to justify inclusion. This isn't a matter of censorship but verifiability and coverage under reliable sources. ^LeaveSleaves 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If random blog comments are not worthy of mention, then pincharuedahamilton should be removed, I don't see why that one stays and not the others. And still no explanation.

Look for someone called A Parker (and another whose name I don't remember) in Ed's blog, they consider that the late extremely harsh criticism to Hamilton may be due to his race.

Lastly, there are many times in history when everybody was wrong. And again: Still no reason to keep pincharuedahamilton in the article and not include the other websites that include the same despicable comments.

I am giving THE SOURCE of the website. Last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a newspaper summary, it is more than that. That it appears in a British newspaper doesn't make it encyclopedic or a factor to what has to be in an article or not.

--Ajrs (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say there is no explanation when the explanation is right there in black and white? BEVE (talk)  19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For Ed Gorman's blog, where? ..... --Ajrs (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice what I said in my comment: forum "comments" are not welcome at any point; forums however can be mentioned if they receive coverage through reliable sources, which is true for pincharuedahamilton. And when I say source, I mean the article itself, not the comments written by its readers. ^LeaveSleaves 19:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

what for is that silly pincharuedahamilton page included anyway? We are building an encyclopedia for crying out loud. Loosmark (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would add that screaming 'Censorship!' usually triggers peoples hyperbole alarms and decreases the credence they will give your additions. Also you were not threatened with banning, you were warned that you had stepped over the line of what is considered acceptable on wikipedia, namely 3RR. I reverted the additions purely on the basis that what people add by way of comments to a news article is such a low threshold for inclusion that one could prove anything. One could go over there, add that Driver A and Driver B are doing the nasty in the Team C motorhome, then come back here and claim that as a source for inclusion into their articles. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the different excuses given to remove my addition, you may understand why I considered it to be censorship. Mainly that it was not important enough, while a similarly horrendous website was kept on the article. I still think it is of no sense to keep the mention to pincharuedahamilton just because there was an article in the Guardian. --Ajrs (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There were no "different excuses", there was one "excuse" paraphrased in different ways. It was a non-noteworthy source, ie it was unencylopaedic, and finally that forum comments shouldnt be here (because they are non-noteworthy/unencyclopaedic). The actual comments visible in the history show that. beardybloke (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but Sleaves quote: "forums however can be mentioned if they receive coverage through reliable sources" and "non noteworthy" and similar excuses are not the same, if they are, then they should have been better worded (as Slevaves'). I guess the mention to Pncharuedahamilon must be really encyclopedic for you, right?, well, the others are exactly the same, the difference: It doesn't appear in the British media, what a surprise. Yes, I know the history is there. Anyhow at this point is of no use continuing this, or, for you: non noteworthy. Cheers. --Ajrs (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference isn't that "they don't appear in British media" but that "they don't appear in any secondary media". And me and other here aren't making excuses, but stating standard policies on editing Wikipedia, which you refuse to understand/read. ^LeaveSleaves 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have shown tho understand/read it. Maybe you should read mine and you will see that what is different is that I don't consider the mention to pincharuedahamilton encyclopedic, even if by the rules it is ok to post it in the article. Another thing is if we want a serious encyclopedia or something else. --Ajrs (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you cannot see the difference between a national newspaper story about a blog/forum/whatever and referring directly to a forum comments as the source. In the first the story is about the fuss caused by the forum, the second its simply referencing gossip and tittle-tattle. beardybloke (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should be more critic about newspaper stories. You have eyes and a mind, if you just see through newspapers eyes, I am sorry for you. Anyhow, this is becoming another forum, I would be glad to continue the chat, but maybe we have other things to do. The point has been made already (like many posts before). --Ajrs (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My views on the newspaper story are irrelevant. This is the equivalent of a newspaper reporting the state of the vandalism in a local towns toilets. Then you reporting on the graffiti directly. The newspaper story is a reasonable source. You reporting that you read on the wall that "Big Jeff loves Sally Smith, XXX" is not appropriate. Its just not what an encyclopeadia does. beardybloke (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop there, I wasn't telling the story, I was giving the source, very different. So if I take you to the local toilet to see it by yourself (that is what I did, I was giving the source to you, you could read it with your own eyes) is not appropiate. But if the Guardian makes a fuss, analysis, etc. about that they read on the wall that "Big Jeff loves Sally Smith, XXX", then it is appropiate again, I am sorry for you. For you the newspaper story seems to be more reliable than the source itself. Anyhow, cheers and sorry in advance if I don't answer anymore, the case is closed already. --Ajrs (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As you say this is pointless, you either dont get or appear not to want to understand the difference. I'm not sure people could explain it more clearly. beardybloke (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia policies that discuss the difference between primary and secondary sources can be found here, here and here. Note the key sentence "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Newspaper coverage of a website is a secondary source. Linking to the website itself is a primary source. Them's the rules. Cheers, BEVE (talk)  21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the racial abuse information should be included in the article. There are more important things than political correctness, which, as a matter of fact, is destroying society. Norum (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia goes, the debate starts and ends with the fact that it happened and was a big news story - both factual and notable. Your views, or mine, about the place of racial abuse in society, are irrelevant. 4u1e (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Big news story? Loosmark (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My recollection is that is was fairly big news, albeit only for a week or so. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, that's how to decide whether it's in or not: was there a lot of coverage in reliable sources? 4u1e (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

well it depends, my impression at the time was that the story was a little bit pumped up by the british press because they were still bitter over Hamilton losing the title 2007 and everything that was going on. For sure those people were very stupid but i'm not sure it was a really such big thing to deserve having a full section "Racial abuse" in this article. Loosmark (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

But now you're putting your own interpretation on whether or not it was notable. Verifiability, not truth, remember. If reliable sources gave it lots of coverage, it's notable. Tabloids, I believe, are not usually considered reliable sources! 4u1e (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't give it its own section - not enough content to justify it. 4u1e (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That section even has the following text: Shortly before the 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, a website owned by the Spanish branch of the New York-based advertising agency TBWA and named "pinchalaruedadeHamilton" (burst Hamilton's tyre) was featured in the British media. The website contained an animated image of Interlagos that allowed users to leave nails and porcupines on the track for Hamilton's car to run over. Among thousands of anti-Hamilton comments left since 2007, some included racial insults.[83] His rival Fernando Alonso, condemned the racist supporters. It's not clear to me what has that to do with "racial abuse". Loosmark (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The connection is the racist comments on the blog, but that's hardly notable and I agree it should go. The previous paragraph is the relevant stuff. That's what I remember as being the big news story at the time. Big enough for Onkel Max to announce 'Race against racism' as a response. 4u1e (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article is now unprotected. Lest any vandal think that this gives them free reign to vandalise the article or add racial slurs to the article let me state that I am keeping an eye on the article. There is a clear warning displayed to any editor who edits the article. Severe blocks will be imposed without warning to any vandal.

An editor wishing to make constructive edits to the article in good faith need not be dissuaded by the warning notice. However, racial vandalism will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle revert failing

I've tried a couple of times now to revert back to the version by Orphan Wiki, because of a number of dubious edits but twinkle keeps hanging while doing the restore. I've now tried it manually - hopefully it should be as expected. As far as I can tell from diffs its the same beardybloke (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy?

I think that if there is a part about him being racially abused we should have controversy articles.

e.g.

• He was the Only driver to get lifted out of a gravel pit and onto the track to complete the race all season 2008 (i think it was 08).
• Im sure you all remember the ferrari scandal? Well since the drivers knew of it (alonso told Ferrari) then how come Hamilton did not do the same, he withheld illegal information.
• He has had a removed liscence twice, for speeding and increasingly dangerous maneuvours
• His seemingly convenient crash in a race 2 or 3 years ago (im afraid i have a terrible memory of dates and places) where he was in the pit lane and the light was red as it was raining and the safety car was passing and he was heading straight for Kubica, and turned last minute heading into raikonnen. People say that it was a reflex to turn but a real f1 driver also has a natural reflex to look before turning and know the dimensions of his car to the mm, convenient as his main competitor at the time was Raikonnen

Just food for thought, Im not anti Hamilton (actually Ive always supported webber) I just dont see how this is in any way less important than 'racial abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.228.154 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be done, any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkitas (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would suggest the opposite: integrate the team tensions section into the 2007 section, and the racial abuse section into the 2008 section.--Midgrid(talk) 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO the real problem is that some drivers, like Alonso or Schumacher have a controversies section while others, who were involved in a equal similar amount of controversies, (like Senna or Hamilton) don't have such a section. That way wikipedia doesn't paint a very objective picture IMO.  Dr. Loosmark  17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Integration of the controversy sections is the way to go. All articles should cover any genuinely controversial issues - i.e. those covered as such in reputable sources - in the main text. The Schumacher controversy section is running out of control, with versions of events that contradict the main article. If any of these articles ever attempt to go for FA status, the controversy sections will become a bone of contention. Get rid. 4u1e (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it could get out of hand - agreeably like schumis..... I think that Midgrid has a good idea, rather then make a section that will inevitably spawn a lot of lies; just add these details to the article! That would probably give off the facts about Hamilton which may be controversial, but not be too painstakingly hard on the article, its semi protected however.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.228.154 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Add to all of the above causing an unheard of number of accidents this year, leading to a confrontation from fellow driven Felipe Massa, as well as condemnation from his own father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.52.190 (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Unheard of" number of accidents? Maybe you haven't been watching F1 very long. If you want to add something, do so, with references and a NPOV of course. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Pending reviews

Hi all

It seems to me that people are just trying to accept pending reviews in some vague attempt to "be the first"

THere have been four edits on the article which were accepted. (Diffs [1], [2], [3] and [4])

The second and third are fine but the first and fourth have allowed text containing weasel words and peacocking. As regular editors should people maybe have paid a bit more attention to the edit being accepted?

I appreciate that there is no need for a reviewer to be an "expert" but allowing peacocking and weasel words is surely not on.

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Reviewing process#Reviewing process, the flaws you name are not reasons to reject the edits. While I agree that the diffs you linked are not flawless, they weren't vandalism, BLP issues, legal threats, copyright violations, or related to the reason for page protection. It's the same as the choice between tagging a new page for speedy deletion or tagging it with a multiple issues template. -Sketchmoose (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe - but I am asking all reviewers to pay more attention to "fixing things" rather than just accepting a change and going off to do something less boring instead

The article is at GA status not Start, C or B but GA. MAybe it would be less of an impact to one of the other calsses but here the edits really did detract.

I spent a little time trying to rectify the matter and the results were extremely beneficial (IMHO lol). I realised fairly quickly the editor was new...

User_talk:Dman_F1 was met with the reply User_talk:Chaosdruid#F1_feedback

It seems to me that experienced editors, and lets face it you probably won't get reviewer rights unless experienced, should maybe spend a little more time on quality not quantity when it comes to reviewing.

Fine- as per guidelines accept, but then don't just run off leaving the mess behind. If a child drops it's ice cream on the grass one doesn't just pick it up and put it back in their hand one would pick off the bits of grass, twigs and ants before you let them eat it - well I hope ppl would anyway :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but I do disagree somewhat. This is a volunteer project, and editors can contribute to whatever extent and in whatever sort of tasks they choose.

I guess what I am saying is that I respect your viewpoint, but do not think that not adhering to it is an invalid method of contribution. I'm sorry if this method annoys you, but it's not wrong.

Also, I like the little nose character in that smiley face—does that come from alt+some number pad combination? -Sketchmoose (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope - the nose is the top left key on my keyboard the one with ` and ¦ (ctrl+alt) and ¬ (shift)

so can also use "and that makes me not very interested ¦¬[]" or "I find that offensive ¦¬(" - well I like them anyway lol
:) always reminds me of a pair of nostrils and makes me want to put the eyes in 8:)

I appreciate that this is a voluntary ethic but if a (voluntary) job is worth doing its worth doing well

I am not annoyed about it - I am more disheartened that so many articles that reach GA or FA end up being back to B, or sometimes even C class, fairly quickly. It is difficult to get to GA and FA standards and easy to allow them to fall down the scale. How many times do we see "A former Good Article" and wonder what went wrong - I just don't want that to happen

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I really like the "that makes me not very interested" and "I find that offensive" faces, as well as your commitment to good articles, which sentiments I will respectfully symbolize as ¦¬D. -Sketchmoose (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's always Template:=) Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection?

I'm minded to raise the protection level to semi-protection, purely to keep newly registered racist vandals (probably just one person with lots of socks) from editing then article. It is regrettable that despite the clear notice that is displayed when editing the article we are still getting such racist vandalism to the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming refs

The use of "ref name=" is entirely in accordance with normal practice and allows the multiple use of the same reference within the article. The size of the article in kb is neither here nor there. If it is felt that the article should be reduced in size by splitting sections out, then by all means propose a split and gain consensus for it. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was remove the "ref name=" of single-mentioned references. I know it is probably a mistake, but I apologise for any harm done. In regards to a possible split, I don't feel that is necessary. A culling of race-by-race information is all I'm proposing in order for the article to not be too weighty in the future. Cs-wolves(talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No real harm was done. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The "ref name" tags that were removed by Cs-Wolves only occured once in the article, therefore removing them will not increase the length of the reflist in any way. I am well aware of the ref name system and how it works, but these ones in this article give unnecessary length to the article. Article size, however, is not the only issue; it confuses editors and makes them think that there is more than one point in the article that uses information from the source in question, when this is in fact not the case.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Those ref may only be used once at the moment, but should it be necessary to insert fresh info from a different source, having the refs named makes that process easier. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not when I was checking refs in the article earlier it wasn't. I spent a while checking for second refs to the same source when I was replacing unreliable sources; it took me a while to realise there was no other info referenced to the same reference. Also many of the ref name titles have strange names that are not obvious to someone new editing the article (like me). Some refs have got ref names and some haven't, which is also confusing for a new editor. For me it's just easier and less messy just to add them when needed. Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Flagicon in infobox

I saw my change removing the flagicons on the infoboxes had been reverted - but the guideline quoted to justify this was for use of a general flagicon use within the article (i.e. where someone represents a specific country at a sporting event), not for someone’s nationalities and not on their infobox – which has its own specific guidlines within the flags section;

"Avoid flag icons in infoboxes As a rule of thumb, flag icons should not be used infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (eg. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly ban the use of flag icons."

If you feel a special case should be made for some individuals, please make the case on the WP:Flagicon talk page (there's been a discussion on there already for 'Flag in Infobox').

On a personal note I don’t disagree with the editor that flagicons are a nice visual aid - but I can understand why the general consensus has been to take them out for nationalities in infoboxes – so to try to ensure consistency across the encyclopaedia I've retaken them out.

Richardeast (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to ensure consistency across the encyclopedia, please remove them from the other 900 or so driver articles in the F1 wikiproject. Alternatively, leave them in. The guideline you quoted is a rule of thumb, not an explicit ban. The section you quoted specifically mentions certain infoboxes in which flagicons are banned, and sporting infoboxes are not among them. The F1 wikiproject consensus is to leave them in, and there is no guideline banning them. There is also no requirement that I can see to ask for special permission. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the general idea is to discuss things before making the changes that you want to make, not to make your change and then start a discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Have started the discussion in the WP:WikiProject Formula One - apologies Bretonbanquet if you feel it there wasn't a discussion, but wiki guidelines are written after extensive debate with large number of editors across the entire encyclopaedia. --Richardeast (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary :) But the presence of these flagicons does not directly infringe any wiki ban on them, just a "rule of thumb", widely discussed at the wikiproject on a number of occasions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from James.wright.93, 12 June 2011

Lewis Hamilton retired from the Canadian GP 2011

James.wright.93 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. GaneshBhaktPublic (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Place of residence / taxes

Any mention of his move to Switzerland has been removed,, and any mention of his admission (on parkinson I think) that it was partially tax related, has been removed. I know it is typical of F1 drivers but if it was any other peoson it would be included somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.70.52 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

'Mixed Race'

Why was this even in the article? There is no need to point out that someone is black, white or mixed race in the article and it is surely enough to mention that his parents emmigrated. I've removed that section of the article as I don't think it contributes anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsdad (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, of course, relevant when the subject is the first driver of mixed race heritage to compete in Formula One - it is of direct relevance to that aspect of his career and that element of his notability. I've restored that section - if consensus here emerges for its removal, then it can be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it in a slightly different way - because his heritage was the subject of considerable discussion at the time he started his career in F1. Rightly or wrongly... 4u1e (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A very strange point of view and one demonstrating a complete lack of continuity within Wikipedia. Barack Obama is of ‘mixed race’ yet his Wikipedia article refers to him as ‘black’ i.e. America’s first black President. In addition, Lewis Hamilton himself refers to himself as being black. There are many people of mixed race in the world (i.e. American’s and Spanish, English and Irish) and it pointing out that Lewis is ‘mixed race’ here seems completely unnecessary as it would in the other examples. The least you could do is have the common decency to refer to him as he prefers. Jacobsdad (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We're all of mixed race. And we're all originally African and almost certainly black, if you go back far enough. Our guiding principle should be quite simple here: what appears in the usual references? (genuine question!). 4u1e (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make the blindest bit of difference what other articles say, or what Hamilton may or may not "prefer". Luckily, Wikipedia is not run according to what its subjects prefer. To answer 4u1e's question, there are references using both epithets, and this article also uses both epithets, all properly referenced. In fact it makes it completely clear, which what it is supposed to do in order to satisfy what people might want to know. We have to reflect the references, and at the moment, this article does that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't make the blindest bit of difference what other articles say" - of course it does, unless you are happy with a lack of continuity across Wikipedia. I'm afraid it's the so called "experts" like Bretonbanquet who continue to bring the quality of articles down here either due to ignorance or strange arrogance. Hell, the article even says that he is often referred to as the first black F1 driver and cites sources. Jacobsdad (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Continuity across a range of articles is of secondary importance to accuracy, particularly with regard to articles which have absolutely nothing in common with each other, like Barack Obama and this article. If you don't like that, then that's up to you. Another couple of things you may not like are WP:AGF and WP:NPA, which you've just violated. You don't get to disparage the intentions of other editors, and you'll find yourself blocked if you continue doing it. Not that insults like those will generally have any effect on your intended target anyway, of course. There are sources to say he's black, as we've said, and there are also sources to say he's mixed race. It's all in the article. You're asking to leave out the part that you don't like. You're a voice in the wilderness here, and the article stays as it is, unless you can raise some kind of consensus to change it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with me not liking the section and everything to do with a lack of continuity - I am not the only user to raise this issue. There's not chance of me being 'blocked' here just because you're upset that I disagree with you but I wish you the best of luck with that. Jacobsdad (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic but "played football with Ashley Young" should be Manchester United now not Aston Villa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.100.112 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sepp1000, 23 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Most podiums in debut season: 12
• Most races led in debut season: 12
• Most front row starts in debut season: 12
• Fastest driver to reach 100 career points: 15 races
• Most consecutive points finishes from debut race: 9 - 2007 Australian GP - 2007 Brtitish GP
• Most consecutive number of races led from debut race: 7 - 2007 Australian GP - 2007 United States GP

Sorry I forgot it. Here is my reliable source.

http://www.f1hamilton.net/lewis-hamiltons-formula-1-record-breaking-rookie-season.html

Sorry

I absolutely agree with you in terms of the British records. But in my opinion the other records are totally correct and I think we have to put them in the article because these records are actually held by Hamilton. So we have to add them. Hope you agree.

Yeah, but when you look at Sebastian Vettel for example. One of the biggest, in my opinion the biggest reason that he became the youngest ever World Champion was his car, which was the best in the field. Or Micheal Schumacher: Would he be a seven-time-Worldchampion without his Ferrari? No. So, you see every driver who has any record, wouldn't had it without his car.

On the one hand we cannot say driver A's records we have to show because he is a so good driver and on the other hand driver B's records we don't have to show because his car is so good. That's not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepp1000 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Sepp1000 (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Spitfire19 ^T/_C 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "Most points for a British driver in one season: 109" record is incorrect. He scored 240 points last season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest not adding these, many of these stats are rather obscure. Most somethings achieved by a specific nationality type stats number in the thousands when Hamilton already has plenty of noteworthy statistics that are not dependant on nationality. --Falcadore (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Many of these records are still very obscure in their definition because they are reliant on the qualifier 'debut season'. The reason these records occur so rarely is not because of Hamilton's talent (which is undeniable) but because of the extroadinarily rare occasion that a rookie driver raced in a car capable of winning races. The most recent example of a driver being in such a position would be Jacques Villeneuve and prior to that you might have to go as far back as Mario Andretti. So these stats are completely dependant on a near twice in a generation happenstance. So essentially the notability of these statistics is more strongly associated with McLaren's decision to hire a rookie driver, than Hamilton's ability. So perhaps taking just one of these stats and adding it in sentence form to McLaren's article, or to the relevant Formula One season article would be more appropriate than further loading up Lewis Hamilton's article, and article already groaning with statistics.

Readability is more important than trivia. --Falcadore (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this link may help. --Falcadore (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:2011 China GP - Hamilton.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2011 China GP - Hamilton.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)