Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 14:21, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lewis Hamilton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lewis Hamilton. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lewis Hamilton at the Reference desk.

Lewis Hamilton has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 29, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 5, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept September 13, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted May 26, 2018 Good article nominee Listed January 9, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 25, 2020, November 16, 2020, November 25, 2014, November 27, 2018, October 25, 2020, and October 26, 2015. Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Motorsport This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject British MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject British MotorsportBritish Motorsport Motorsport Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Formula One Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Hertfordshire (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire National Football League Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as High-importance). Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Dyslexia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dyslexia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DyslexiaWikipedia:WikiProject DyslexiaTemplate:WikiProject DyslexiaDyslexia

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Mercedes hunts for Misplaced Pages vandal". Autosport. October 11, 2007.

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Lewis_Hamilton#Formula_One_records (oldid, history) → List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton#Records (diff) Copied Lewis_Hamilton#Other_awards (oldid, history) → List_of_career_achievements_by_Lewis_Hamilton#Awards (diff)

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: November 23 to 29, 2014 (19th) December 12 to 18, 2021 (4th)

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Added Russell's Belgian GP disqualification

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

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

Hello. I am fairly unfamiliar with this particular edit dispute, but I have done a fair bit of editing on the George Russell article so I do have some subject matter familiarity. My two cents:

1. Include, but contextualize, Hamilton's experimental setups. As the Russell article notes, Russell agrees that Hamilton took greater risks setting up the car in 2022; I remember all the jokes about Russell being eternally condemned to finish between 4th and 5th, and Hamilton understandably had no truck with that. That said, Russell also insists that Mercedes distributed their experiments equally, which is important context, since it suggests that Hamilton is the source of his own misfortune, rather than a defenseless guinea pig. (2024 arguably fits the guinea pig rationale more than 2022.)
2. Err in favor of overinclusiveness during ongoing seasons. I don't see why we shouldn't include Hamilton's struggles in 2024, at least during the 2024 season. If I had to guess, I would probably agree that the 2024 US GP will be a footnote in Hamilton's racing history (as a rule of thumb, the greater the racer the less individual races mean - for upper-shelf legends like Hamilton, even most wins might not warrant full sentences), but Hamilton has also admitted to being unmotivated, and if that's the narrative for the season, then the US GP might be a relevant example of lack of motivation/loss of focus. We don't know yet, and a lot of context and narrative-drawing will take place after the season (a lot of gossip, too). Until then, serious evaluation of a season will probably involve race-by-race summaries in some way, which we will then condense once the dust clears and we have a better handle on what the season's actual narratives were. Yes, Mercedes has dropped off in performance, I wrote that in the Russell article myself, but it also did just score a 1-2 in Las Vegas.
3. Recharacterize the 2021 regs analysis. I don't know if RB's early wins are the best way to put the point; the upshot of the linked source is that Mercedes lost ground relative to the field from 2020 to 2021, whereas Red Bull (and most other teams) were faster. I'm not sure "performance gains" is the right way to put it because all cars were slower in 2021; Red Bull just slowed down less. (https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-alarming-speed-gains-that-triggered-f1s-2021-changes-5278026/5278026/; https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/mehdxa/quali_lap_times_comparison_2020_vs_2021/)
4. The collisions were pretty important. It was the first truly close title race in years and a collision between close title contenders is inherently noteworthy, even if it's not Prost/Senna at Suzuka. I am not expressing an opinion re: the specific edits that have been tabled.
5. I don't think the manner of Hamilton's victory at Spa 2024 is that important in a Hamilton article. It's important in a Russell article because it gives Russell two near-misses to three wins, no? But Russell doesn't have Hamilton's body of work.

Namelessposter (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree the proposed edit for 3 should be reworded to "relative performance gains". Mb2437 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, nothing personal here either!

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

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

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

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

There are plenty of secondary sources supporting Hamilton's 2022 experimental setups, such as this and this (including direct claims from Hamilton himself and Wolff). I wanted to wait until the season's end as well, and Hamilton's qualifying struggles, along with Mercedes' poor post-summer break performances, definitely should be mentioned to ensure readers fully understand what caused the miserable second half of the season for Hamilton.

Honestly, I do not see why Wolff’s claim should be mentioned in the article. You said it is an “important point in highlighting the friction between the two that has led to Hamilton's departure,” but this is not accurate. There is no friction between them, and Hamilton decided to leave the team months before this claim was made. Your claim is not supported by any verified sources and sounds speculative. From the source you referenced, Hamilton’s response was clearly in reference to his poor Sao Paulo GP performance and has nothing to do with Wolff’s claim. Hamilton and Wolff stated that the car was to blame for the poor performances at US and Sao Paulo GPs, this can be further confirmed by Russell's statement as well. However, like your sources, these comments come directly from themselves, and we cannot rely on them to justify changes to the article. That is exactly why I suggest we should simply mention Mercedes' poor performances and Hamilton's qualifying struggles in the second half of the season, without going into race-by-race details. This approach is more concise, effective, and certainly not misleading. Because it addresses the struggles of Hamilton's as well as Mercedes'.

In my previous comment, I clarified that the source indicates 2021 regulations affected Mercedes and favored Red Bull, which resulted in both teams' performance shifts from 2020. I also explained why we should retain the claim about Red Bull’s dominant first half of the season. I stand by this point and do not find your reasons convincing enough for its removal.

I agree that solely mentioning the claim “one of the greatest sporting performances” is contentious, but we cannot just replace it with “one of his greatest performances.” The source does not support the latter claim. Instead, I suggest we mention that the author of the source refers to it as “one of the greatest sporting performances.” I also agree we should eliminate buzzwords in the likes of “impressive,” “despite,” and so on.

Since we have both presented our reasons on how the article should be framed, I propose we now wait for others' input to reach consensus. I would also like to remind you not to make any changes to this particular section of the article until consensus is reached. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not denying his use of experimental setups in 2022, it's the framing of "subsequent to " and tying it directly into Mercedes's performance improving that's the concern. Wolff's "shelf-life" claim is supported by Formula One themselves and Wolff, who himself discussed it. Hamilton's comment on not wanting to come back came days after the claim, and the source used mentions it. We could replace reference to his mistakes with "struggles in ", although I will say it should be noted that the US Grand Prix was the first time an unforced error ended a race for him in 17 years. Red Bull were not "dominant" in the first half of 2021, that is an unfair assessment of the season—6 out of 11 is an egregious justification of that framing. The re-written version was neutral and had no issues, Red Bull made performance gains which saw them closely matched, simple and clear. If we're going to say Red Bull outperformed Mercedes at the start of the season, then we'd need to say Mercedes outperformed them at the end, winning 5 of the last 8 Grands Prix... The referencing to the author of the source can definitely be done for his Brazil performance, although I'd argue that "widely acclaimed as one of his best performances" with 3–4 references is far more concise and impactful than reference to one journalist. Mb2437 (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think the current sentence, 'Subsequent to Hamilton's run of races with experimental car setups and major mid-season car upgrades,' conveys an idea that directly ties into Mercedes' performance improvements that year. It more likely implies that after Hamilton stopped using experimental car setups and once the mid-season upgrades arrived, he was able to perform better.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, we cannot rely solely on statements to justify changes to the article, especially when Wolff, Hamilton (sources are in my previous comment), and Russell themselves were uncertain about what exactly caused the mistake at the US GP. If there is a valid source with a technical analysis proving Hamilton was to blame for the US GP error, then we can confidently add your claim to the article with no objections. I am fairly certain that unforced errors have ended Hamilton's races in the past, particularly in his McLaren days, such as at the 2009 Italian GP. This makes your claim less significant, especially since similar incidents have not been highlighted in the article.

I agree that 'dominant' was not the correct word to use, but the rewritten version is not exactly neutral either, as it only mentions Red Bull making gains. The article should also address how Mercedes was affected and how vulnerable they were to Red Bull in the first half of the season to ensure it is neutral and fully informative. Regarding the statement, 'we'd need to say Mercedes outperformed them at the end,' both Mercedes and Red Bull won 5 races post-summer break, and Mercedes' advantage in the final 4 races is evident, the article already notes that Hamilton won 3 of the last 4 races and led the majority of the Abu Dhabi GP.

The current claim holds more weight and significance. I would not recommend changing it to 'one of his best performances,' since his drive was more compared to F1’s greatest drives. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

"Subsequent to" very much does convey that idea, it needs to be reworded slightly. I'm content with the US Grand Prix statement being removed, although Sao Paulo needs to be mentioned briefly alongside Hamilton's quote, which came directly after that and Wolff's comments.

Red Bull making relative gains is considerably more neutral than trying to desperately argue to the reader that they were better, the source used only mentions their qualifying gains. Mercedes' vulnerability is clearly mentioned by stating that Verstappen and Hamilton were closely matched, with no insinuations. The current claim for Brazil is not verifiable, I cannot find a single independent list of "greatest sporting performances" with this performance (the source used doesn't even state that, it states "the kind of performance few people in sporting history would be able to deliver"); "one of his greatest performances" absolutely is ( apart from this one apparently), but "one of the greatest performances in Formula One history" would be less so ; his performance at Silverstone 2008 is fairly widely more acclaimed, which certainly should have such a statement of being one of F1's greatest wet-weather performances. I wholly stand by there being absolutely nothing wrong with the 2021 edit (besides adding "relative" before performance gains), which rectified a lot of issues and discussed the season impartially and concisely, with Hamilton's major achievements mentioned. Mb2437 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Since we are the only ones interested in discussing this matter so far, I think we should be more flexible and come to an agreement to reach consensus. My suggestions are as follows;

2021 season

What I would be fine with is, "Regulation changes for the 2021 season saw Red Bull make performance gains on Mercedes, winning 6 out of the first 11 races and emerging Hamilton and Red Bull's Verstappen as title favourites early on in the season." This phrasing highlights the impact of Red Bull's performance gains, it is more informative and maintains neutrality.

The source supports the claim, as it states, "not just as one of the greatest displays in F1 but in elite sport." I recommend we rewrite it to reflect that the specific author made this claim, as it adds more weight than simply referring to it as "his greatest performances," especially since it is from Formula 1’s official author. We can adjust this further if a new consensus is reached in the future.

We should avoid specifying the exact races where both drivers collided. It does not align with the overall narrative of the article, as there are other, equally controversial collisions with Rosberg mentioned concisely without identifying the specific races. I suggest we follow that same approach and simply note that both drivers collided several times throughout the season.

2022 season

Hamilton's use of experimental car setups should be mentioned, and it is up to you to decide if any rewording is necessary. Just ensure the main idea of the text remains unchanged.

2024 season

Both Mercedes’ performance decline and Hamilton's qualifying struggles (he has always performed better in races) in the latter half of the season should be noted. Along with those factors leading Hamilton to express his desire to end his 2024 season before the final three races. This phrasing works better than directly quoting his comment, "I didn't wanna come back." FormulaFreak1 (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that we should not mention the collisions; the section is about his title battle versus Verstappen. Not mentioning the flashpoints of their battle, in the section about their battle, makes no sense. No opinion is given on the collisions, simply that they were controversial. The user above agreed on this. We don't need a cherrypicked stat on how many races Red Bull or Mercedes won, it is clearer and more concise to just state Verstappen and Hamilton were closely matched—their finishing 1–2 on 14 occasions is mentioned in the edit to verify this, which is clearer to the reader and is actually centred on the subject (Hamilton). If we won't include extra details on Hamilton's victories, then it makes little sense to include excessive details on another team's performances when the statistic (6/11) is relatively insignificant and not mentioned by the source. I'm sure you'd be against mentioning Verstappen individually won 5/7 races from France to Zandvoort. We probably shouldn't include another direct quote in the section, as we have one from Mr. Benson in the next paragraph, and ideally not one from the official Formula 1 website, who would certainly not be impartial regarding such a claim and is hardly independent. We'd have to go beyond Formula One journalism to verify its status in the pantheon of great sporting performances. "One of his greatest performances" would better satisfy WP:DUE, and it being "widely acclaimed" of that with several references is far more impactful than an isolated view of one journalist. Mb2437 (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we should revisit the 2022–2024 section at a later date, once the period has ended. The changes I'm suggesting are relatively minor anyway; I'll only separate the 2022 statements, but maintain the content. Mb2437 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You are repeatedly misunderstanding my words. I did not mean that we should avoid mentioning their collisions. We should mention them briefly, without going into details about the exact races where the collisions occurred. This specific information is irrelevant to the article and can easily be found in the season's own article. It does not make sense to include it here, since readers would not visit this article to look for that specific information. The Hamilton-Rosberg collisions, which were fairly intense and controversial, were briefly mentioned without going into details, and the same approach should be applied here to maintain consistency throughout the article.

I am content with replacing the 2021 Brazil quote due to the lack of sources, but I strongly stand by my other suggestions. Of course, I am against adding the stat about Verstappen winning five races from France to Zandvoort. Because in addition to this article not being about Verstappen, it is a mid-season stat that does not fully reflect the impact of the pre-season regulation changes. However, note that this stat further proves Red Bull's advantage in the first half of the season.

If you plan to revisit the 2022-2024 section later, it should be reverted to its previous version and the information regarding Hamilton’s 2022 experimental car setups should be re-added. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to this article not being about Verstappen, equally this is not an article about Red Bull, so the unsourced and cherrypicked stat should be removed. The Rosberg collisions not being mentioned is surprising, and I don't think justifies removing a small detail in parentheses that highlights the tension and key moments in the battle, which have been reduced to three examples that were very widely discussed in secondary sources. I'll have a look through in a moment and make the agreed upon changes so far. Mb2437 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The Red Bull stat doesn't actually fit any relevant narrative, Hamilton led the championship after 11 rounds. Mb2437 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Made minor changes to improve conciseness. The article should remain unchanged from its current state until consensus is reached regarding your proposed changes for the 2021 season. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Made small tweaks for clarity and accuracy, no real content change besides removing the attributing of his poor form in 2022 to his experiments—Toto Wolff is not an independent source. Mb2437 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Do one-off special helmets truly deserve a place in this article?

Aside from Hamilton's gold world champion exclusives, Senna and Lauda tribute helmets, are the other one-off helmets—like those he wears annually for the Brazilian and Japanese races—significant enough to be mentioned in the article? FormulaFreak1 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Special designs should be mentioned generally, but not specifically. The section should be discussing his full-time helmet designs, not each of his one-off ones. The Senna mention is notable in this explanation for inspiring the colour scheme on many occasions, but not for the special helmets, which belong in Senna's legacy section; the same applies with Lauda. "Hamilton reverted to using a yellow helmet design for the first time since 2013" is incorrect, he used one in 2017. His BLM and LGBT helmets should be retained in a paragraph together as they were both widely discussed in media, and used for an extended period of time . Listing precise Grands Prix where he used a one-off design seems pointless, apart from the collaborations with artists Takashi Murakami and Hajime Sorayama at the 2022 and 2023 Japanese Grands Prix, respectively. Three paragraphs on special designs when the purpose of the section (see Schumacher for example) is to simply explain his design in one or two seems overkill. Mb2437 (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. But I think a brief mention of Senna and Lauda special helmets should be included in the article, especially since both individuals were influential figures for Hamilton. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Rivalries - missing Max Verstappen

Why are Rosberg/Alonso/Vettel here but not Verstappen? SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed here. Summary was that if there are a secondary, independent sources listing and discussing it as a notable rivalry then it should be added. Autosport ranked it 7th all-time in November 2021, ESPN described it as "one of F1's all-time great rivalries", BBC stated their title battle is considered "the most dramatic in recent history". I believe its inclusion will remain historically relevant as one of Hamilton's greatest rivalries. There's also a call to include Felipe Massa, given it has spilled over into a widely publicised feud over the 2008 title. MB2437 18:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, cause why is Vettel here, he isn't really a rival to Hamilton tbh. Their best years (Red Bull for Vettel, Merc for Hamilton) didn't overlap with each other. SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

In 2010 Hamilton was in the championship fight until the very end until Vettel took top honours. In 2017 and 18 Vettel was an early contender for the world championship, before Hamilton pulled away, mostly due to consistency and poor car developement from Ferrari. These three season led media to discuss a Ham-Vet rivalry. And ultimately, what we write is dictated by the media. SSSB (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Verstappen should be here is my point, he provided a more direct competition for Hamilton than Vettel and Alonso ever did. SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Our opinion on the matter is inconsequential, notability as an inclusion criterion on Misplaced Pages is generally dictated by a subject's prevalence in secondary, independent sources. I'll have a look at drafting a version of this for both Hamilton and Verstappen's biographies. MB2437 22:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight in 2021 development

This edit places undue weight on Red Bull's car development in the early part of 2021. Either both sides of the season should be discussed, or neither. We can't just leave it at Red Bull being quicker when this was not true for three-quarters of the season (per the referenced source). It's very clearly placing undue emphasis on Red Bull's early season successes, as evidenced in this edit summary. I'll also note that no consensus was reached on this matter, and that Mercedes' performance towards the end of the season is also widely discussed. This article summarises it well. Either way, I believe neither should be mentioned and it should be left at Red Bull making gains and Verstappen/Hamilton being closely matched; Hamilton's article does not need statistics on who was quicker at specific stages of the season, when we can simply say they were closely matched and avoid any neutrality issues. MB2437 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Similar statistics are used throughout this article, and they are effectively used to provide a clearer picture, helping the reader understand the context more thoroughly than a brief mention would. Red Bull's early advantage was significant and widely discussed by various publications, including the source you provided.

The statement that Red Bull being quicker "was not true for three-quarters of the season (according to the referenced source)" is incorrect. The source in question compares qualifying laps and expresses uncertainty about their final verdict, citing mistakes and misfortunes Verstappen experienced during certain qualifying sessions. Your source indicates that Mercedes' advantage was only in straight-line speeds, and they still lagged behind Red Bull in the corners. This source mentions that Mercedes were sometimes still outpaced by Red Bull, after the British GP upgrade. This was evident from Verstappen's dominant performances at the Dutch GP, and his other wins subsequent to British GP. The source further suggests that Hamilton's late-season winning streak was likely due to a new power unit introduced at the Brazilian GP, and even mentions that Mercedes were unlikely to win the Constructors' Championship due to the early advantage held by Red Bull, further clarifying the significance of my point.

I do not see a lack of neutrality in simply presenting that statistic. A third-party perspective might be useful in this case. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Similar statistics are not used consistently at all. I see it sort of mentioned in 2018, but that was about Vettel's championship lead over Hamilton, not specifically Ferrari.

You're missing the point, WP:UNDUE states we should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. All of the named sources discuss Mercedes's advantage alongside Red Bull's relatively equally. Both sides should be mentioned, or neither; the current prose suggests that Red Bull simply held an advantage throughout the season. I stand by the edit rectifying this issue. MB2437 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I said similar, stats such as Mercedes winning 51 out of 59 races between 2014 and 2016 better convey the significance of their dominance during that period than a brief mention would. If there are factors widely discussed by reliable sources, they should be included in the article; this applies to seasons like 2018 as well.

You mentioned, 'All of the named sources discuss Mercedes's advantage alongside Red Bull's relatively equally.' However, as I pointed out earlier, I genuinely could not find any mention of 'Mercedes's advantage' in the sources you provided (It suggests that they reduced the performance gap), apart from the one I referenced, which clearly notes Hamilton's advantage due to a new power unit in the last four races. I would not stand against mentioning Hamilton's advantage in those races, as it is clear he almost won all of them.

The current wording does not indicate that Red Bull held an advantage throughout the season. Instead, it suggests that Red Bull's early-season advantage contributed to both Verstappen and Hamilton being title contenders, which is accurate and backed by reliable sources. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The source you mentioned was specifically about Sao Paulo, where these were about the whole season: Source 1 has 180 words on Red Bull's advantage, 188 on Mercedes, whilst source 2 is 42–103 in the introduction (which weighs up the season). 1 suggests Red Bull's advantage was only present at max. eight of the 22 rounds (BHR, MON–AUT, USA, MXC), and was only significant from Monaco to Austria, adding that Mercedes appeared to have fully transformed their deficit to Red Bull into an advantage at most venues. MB2437 13:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It discusses the potential of Hamilton's momentum being carried into subsequent races, due to the new power unit. I highlighted the issues with Source 1 and explained why we cannot rely on its verdict made by qualifying performances. However, it emphasizes that Red Bull had the advantage right from the season opener—claiming pole and barely missing out on the win—and that they "clearly had the fastest car" from Monaco to Austria. What they mean by "clearly" is that Mercedes could not even come close to matching Red Bull's performance during these races.

The source suggests uncertainty about who was quicker after Mercedes' British GP update, due to "highly eventful races with unconventional outcomes". It states that Mercedes held the advantage over Red Bull only by the end of the season, following the Mexican GP (the race where it claims "Red Bull held the upper hand" for the final time). Notes that Hamilton's new power unit at the Brazil GP played the key role in Mercedes' improved performance, further approving my point that Mercedes' advantage only became clear in the final four races of the season. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Source 2: From Silverstone onwards, Mercedes were in the ascendent and on pure performance should really have won more than six of the remaining 13 races. I still believe the best way to put it all, to avoid neutrality issues, is to simply state Verstappen and Hamilton were closely matched. Relative car performance generally belongs elsewhere, not in driver biographies where it's frequently used as an excuse, particularly in a case like this where the performance remained closely-matched all season.

The original suggested edit Whilst Red Bull held an early advantage, Mercedes out-developed them after the summer break. does not say that Mercedes were quicker during that span anyway, simply that they out-developed them, which is verified in both sources clearly. MB2437 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to sort out a neutrality issue that does not belong. The current version of the article suggests that Red Bull’s early advantage led to Verstappen and Hamilton emerging as title contenders early in the season. It does not imply an idea of something like Hamilton fighting for the title despite Verstappen having the car advantage throughout the season.

The article briefly mentions car performance to clarify important points, not to make excuses. We cannot simply state that Mercedes out-developed Red Bull, as the sources indicate that they only reduced Red Bull's advantage. Both Source 1 and my source clearly state that Mercedes' only advantage was during the final four races and was primarily due to Hamilton's new power unit. Source 2 suggests that Mercedes only had an edge in straight-line speeds, and still lagged behind in cornering speeds after the British GP upgrade. It is important not to overlook Red Bull’s significant early advantage (as sources say), whilst it being discussed in pretty much all of the sources provided so far. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Reducing the advantage is out-developing... It does not imply an idea of something like Hamilton fighting for the title despite Verstappen having the car advantage throughout the season. Actually, that is exactly what it implies if we leave it simply at Red Bull having an advantage. MB2437 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Directly stating that Red Bull's advantage was reduced is certainly more precise than saying they were 'out-developed.' The article clearly mentions that Red Bull only won five consecutive races and led the championship, while specifying it was 'early in the season' in the following sentences. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That implies that Red Bull were still quicker, which both sources verify was not wholly true. MB2437 14:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Sports and recreation good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• GA-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
• GA-Class vital articles in People
• WikiProject British Motorsport articles
• GA-Class motorsport articles
• Top-importance motorsport articles
• GA-Class Formula One articles
• Top-importance Formula One articles
• GA-Class National Football League articles
• Low-importance National Football League articles
• WikiProject National Football League articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• High-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
• Low-importance Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
• WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report