Talk:Lewis Hamilton

Paradise Papers: tax avoidance

There should be a mention of the revelations of the Paradise Papers that he's been avoiding deliberately taxes in the UK and the rest of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.108.242 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's already there - see the "Tax avoidance" section. DH85868993 (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It was, but now it's been removed. Medeis, were you planning to come here to justify the removal? The sourcing looks pretty solid to me. John (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That section was constructed to draw the reader toward a certain negative conclusion about the subject. The final statement was unreferenced, and the other sentences came from different sources but made an implied argument that he was guilty of some offense he had not been charged with or tried for. That, as an international figure, he had overseas dealings is not criminal. The fact that his private financial matters were leaked to the public shows culpability only on the part of those who hacked his data, not any criminality on his part. The notion that he should be outed in our article on the basis of a certain viewpoint that has to be explained to the reader in the form of premises drawing one towards a conclusion, rather than just reporting the facts (if they existed) about any actual criminal charges, convictions or admissions is a violation of NPOV, SYNTHESIS, and BLP. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, and I think I have a well-deserved reputation as a stern upholder of BLP. I think though that if the BBC and other major reliable sources have seen fit to cover this, it should certainly be mentioned in our article. Is there a way we could compromise on a wording that would satisfy your concerns? --John (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd still be of the opinion it's undue weight, but a mention that he was one person named in the leak of thousands private documents (which needs to be described as such) and became therefor the subject of criticism by some (who need to be named, per WP:ATTRIBUTE) for revelations of his offshore holdings, although there have been no criminal allegations in this regard, would be fine BLP-wise. The nature of the leak, attribution of criticism, and mention that no crime has been alledged are essential.

The problem with the previous version was the multi-sentence synthetic walking through aspect toward an implied conclusion based on an assumed POV held by revenuers themselves. We have to remember that there was a definite agenda behind that leak, and it was not neutral nor was it legally produced (as in court evidence) or sanctioned (as in legally mandated). Also, tax evasion (in the US at least), is a specific crime, while tax avoidance is perfectly legal. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

Even with semi protection, would it be ok to correct a typo? At his biography at the 2017 brazilian part it read " and so started the race from pole position while teammate Bottas took pole position" where you see the mistake here. It should instead read " and so started the race from the pits, while teammate Bottas took pole position" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:560:EF81:E34B:9738:D84D:52D4 (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed (although I wrote "from the pit lane" rather than "from the pits"). Thanks for pointing out the error. DH85868993 (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lewis Hamilton/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 17:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I will bite the bullet and take this on. I will print it out for a copyedit and to make comments; this should take a couple of days (at least). Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, here I am ten days later, delayed by a combination of things:

• The derecho line in the Northeast U.S. a week ago that knocked out our power for a day (But at least I used some of the time without it to read through my hard copy with a red pen).

• More importantly, the limitations of our printing technology. Printing this article in its standard form results in a large stack of papers with the type about 6 points high. I know it's nice to be able to say you've gone over an article with a microscope, but that shouldn't be literally. Something will have to be done about this at the tech end, because in order to properly proof the article, I had to cut and paste it into Word. That came out to 37 pages without the tables and footnotes.

But anyway ...

First and foremost I can say that there is no problem with this article not being comprehensive enough. This would be a prime example of the far end of the spectrum.

I mean ... 255K or thereabouts when I started this? WOW! I thought this would be the longest article we have on a living active professional athlete, but then I got the hint that Cristiano Ronaldo was even longer and ... yep. At 310K and almost 700 footnotes, it leaves this one in the dust. We seriously might want to consider separate "Playing career of ...", or something like that, spinoffs for articles like this.

Someone must have decided after the last GA fails that the best way to go was overwhelming force, and ... on that score, they won. I can only assume FAC is on the near horizon. Perhaps someone should tell them to duck.

There are, nevertheless, some places where this approach hurts more than it helps:

• In the intro, it is understandable that we say Hamilton is biracial (as we say in North America; I suppose "mised-race" is the UK term?). But I think we can leave the fact that his father is black and his mother white to the section on his childhood.

• Speaking of which, in that section, I don't think the fact that his parents lived in Grenada before he was born is relevant, at least not when it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article; nor do I see a reason to give his sisters' names if they're not notable (his brother, who seems to be, is a different story).

• I also don't see why we need that graf of Alonso complaining about how things went after the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix either, as he says nothing directly about Hamilton in it. It's a lot more relevant to Alonso's career, and honestly I think the article could lose this without anyone really noticing.

The writing was, uh, interesting. It feels as is if it was written by three different people, perhaps at different times. One, mostly responsible for the later stages of Hamilton's career and the "driving style" section, was fairly competent and knew how to write for Wikipedia. The parts after that, and some odd sentences here and there elsewhere in the article, read like they were written by a second-language speaker—sometimes I had to guess at what the writer might have intended when correcting the grammar and syntax.

Lastly, the earlier sections, probably older, seemed to have written by a younger, less eloquent writer, one of the kind prone to the overly formal style I associate here with fans whose zeal to make sure the article is up to date outstrips their ability to fluidly use the language. The sort of writer for whom things are never said, but stated. The sort of writer prone to redundant phrasing like "at the age of" and "finishing in fifth place" (as well as a really good one here, "prior to the start of the season" (where everything the first five words say can be condensed to one: "before"). The sort of writer not entirely clear on when to use figures and when to spell out numbers (For consistency's sake, I followed, as I do in all my own writing, the AP Stylebook's rule that one through nine are spelled out both as cardinals and ordinals while 10 and above require figures ... MOS:NUM leaves this up to the writer). The sort of writer who feels we need to know, years later, the exact dates someone was informed of something and when that something was made public two months later. The sort of writer who, without realizing it, has absorbed a lot of bad journalistic clichés like "[they] officially appealed [the decision]" (Has an unofficial appeal ever been possible?)

Cleaning up that latter writer was in large part responsible for the almost 2K I was able to shave off during my copyedit. As a rule, I consider any time you wind up cutting more than 1K to have been an indicator that there was definite fat in the article.

There are still by my count about a dozen {{fact}} tags that need to be addressed. Formulaonewiki has done an excellent job responded to the other ones, and I trust this will continue until they are all gone.

So, I am putting this article on hold until everything is cited. An article this long should not have any uncited grafs, not when it already has almost 400 footnotes. (The other suggestions here can be taken as primarily advisory). Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, five days have gone by, and there appears not to be a remaining tag in the article. And my other concerns above have been addressed as well.

Therefore, the article passes. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Pole positions?

Simple question: does he have 76 or 77 poles? List of f1 drivers' records states 76 (todays' included), whereas here he has 76 without todays' pole included. MattSucci (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's 76 including the 2018 British Grand Prix. The value displayed in this article comes from Template:F1stat which had been updated before you asked your question. DH85868993 (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Question answered. Thank you very much. My ignorance of the finer workings of Wikipedia was demonstrated here.MattSucci (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem. It can seem counterintuitive that the content of an article can change without the article being directly edited. DH85868993 (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Latest win is not French GP, it's German GP.

Latest win should be German GP, it is still showing French GP. Stewards reprimand him for pit entry violation. Kosta021 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Y Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Part Finnish

During the press conference of the 2018 German Grand Prix, Hamilton revealed he has a "fraction of Finnish" in him. The quote (and context) can be found near the end of the transcript https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/headlines/2018/7/fia-post-race-press-conference---germany.html.

Is there a place in the article where this characteristic and disclosure can appear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supun47 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Latest win is not German GP, it's Hungarian GP.

Latest win should be Hungarian GP instead of German GP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.225.254 (talk • contribs)

Y Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Rivalry with Nico Rosberg - no mention of the 2016 Canadian GP?

At the 2016 Canadian Grand Prix, Hamilton and Rosberg, who started both from the front row, collided on the first lap, causing the German to lose several positions and not being able to finish better than fifth after a battle with Max Verstappen while Hamilton won the race.

I think it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.144.96 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton comments on India.

Lewis Hamilton comments on country India and later clarified it. Source. Ram nareshji (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed controversies section

Hi all, I want to suggest that the current article would benefit from two changes:

1. I think it is worth including details of Hamilton's remarks at the 2018 SPOTY show, along with his subsequent apology. These comments were widely covered in reliable news outlets, including here, here, and here.
2. I think that much of the material in the 'personal life' section would be better placed in a new (sub-)section entitled 'controversies', this could also include the material on tax avoidance. As it stands, Hamilton's driving offences and controversial Instagram comments are placed in the same section as his taste in music and clothing line. I think this structural change could be introduced, while ensuring a NPOV. Jono1011 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Y Done. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the idea. By concentrating these items under one section it draws undue attention to them, especially by labeling the section as "controversies" (see WP:BLPSTYLE). I think (and this view is supported by WP:CRITS) that such things (assuming suitable RSes exist) should be covered within the existing sections, and named more neutrally. So, pending other views, I think the unduly rapid change to include a separate section should be undone for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to have the Tax avoidance section restored, then a new Public behaviour for the other controversies. Or, have Tax avoidance, Driving Offenses and Public comments. Thoughts? --Formulaonewiki (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC

I wouldn't group them into a single section, just leave them in the chronological prose. Separating them out unduly focuses attention on them as if they are a feature or trait of his life that need particular attention, when they're trivia really and we don't provide special sections for other "by-the-ways" in his biography. (Please note too that tax evasion is illegal (and accusations of such would violate BLP if not robustly sourced - hence my mod to your post), whereas tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate and would be considered as prudent by many.) -- DeFacto (talk). 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

My mistake! Thanks for correcting. Probably best to revert for now until we reach consensus. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You want to be careful you don't attach undue weight to any of this. A controversy section is hazardous on a BLP, as it impugns the subjects character. Which may be fine, if there enough evidence that the subject is actually controversial, with a history of wrongdoing or significant debate over their deeds, but not if all we've got is a single story about something someone once said. An actual controversy is something that is discussed more than once.

I'm not convinced this latest thing is even worth including. It's a rather trivial event in the life and times of Lewis Hamilton, and does not inform the reader of anything about the man. His tax affairs may justify a separate section, as his residency, amount of tax he pays and his plane registration have all come under discussion multiple times. Everything else should either be included in the personal life section, or removed. QueenCake (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I think the SPOTY material does merit inclusion, particularly given the international press coverage it attracted. I think that it does tell you something about Hamilton as a person, particularly if all the relevant details are included. Re: whether to have a 'controversies' section, I agree that this could lead to undue attention being drawn to this section. Perhaps as a compromise we could keep the material in the personal life section, but include neutrally named subjections so that the material is presented thematically, rather than chronologically. Jono1011 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lewis Hamilton signature svg.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Grammer Correction

Under Formula One Career / Mercedes / 2013 season: First win with Mercedes. The sentence that starts "The move was met the surprise by pundits and the public... " should really be "The move was met with surprise by pundits and the public...".

Phuzi (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Done, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

When Lewis knew he had McLaren drive

We have known Lewis and Anthony Hamilton from his time at Manor Motorsport when racing Formula Renault. Attending the F1 test at Silverstone after the Italian GP in September 2006, we were chatting with Anthony on the day that Lewis was testing the McLaren. When no-one was in ear-shot Anthony said to me, "Ron Dennis drives a hard bargain", then winked and grinned, when my face erupted and I said "What?" and about to say "so Lewis has signed?", he put a finger to his lips to indicate "keep it a secret". That was around the 20th of September. So Anthony at least had agreed a deal for Lewis to be paid for being a F1 driver before the end of September... 92.234.139.94 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's make sure we get the ethnic background of everyone

Hamilton's mother, Carmen (Larbalestier), is white British, while his father, Anthony Hamilton, is black British, making him mixed-race;

What is the point of this? The majority have eyes. I think Theresa Mays page needs an edit --- > "May is the only child of Zaidee Mary (née Barnes; 1928–1982) and Hubert Brasier (1917–1981).[17] Her father was a Church of England clergyman (and an Anglo-Catholic)[18] who was chaplain of an Eastbourne hospital."

Well? What is she? Racially? Is her father welsh? Does her mother have any Scot blood? Why is that not a thing on her page?

Is Theresa May and many others whose pages do not start like this... inbred? If not. Should their biographies not also begin with "making her/him mixed race" ?