Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 2 November 2008

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.

This article has not yet been rated 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

	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
Current status: Good article

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Mercedes hunts for Misplaced Pages vandal". Autosport. October 11, 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Archives

Archive 1 (2006-June 2007) Archive 2 (June 2007 - October 2007)

Zulu?

The cross isn't even Zulu. It's Celtic. Whoever done it isn't clever and is not Hamilton if of course he would. I'm not a member so could someone repair the page to the original? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.138.4 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

British Grand Prix Win

I added a little bit about his win today at the British Grand Prix. If you watched the broadcast you heard that the commentators stated it was one of his best drives. Hamilton himself mentioned that it was his best win. I added this info in - but since it was a TV broadcast have no way to site the source of the comments. Should they be removed?

Bigfellahull (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the interview will be documented in writing on one of the websites, so there'll be a source soon. By the way, I noticed you changed it from "Hamilton said" to "Lewis said", but I think "Hamilton" is better and "Lewis" is perhaps too informal. Beve (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just found one on BBC news. I believe you are right about Hamilton instead of Lewis. I have changed it back.

Bigfellahull (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(Minor point, the norm round here is to add new topics at the bottom not the top. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Editwikipedianow (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)you need some pictures of bahrain(him hitting alonso), turkey, monaco, montreal and great britain this yearEditwikipedianow (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Third

Ok Correct me if I am wrong, but surely Lewis was third in 2007, he was equal on points with Alonso, but Alonso had more race wins. Sorry for not loggin in. Chris.

Edit: I am incorrect, they both had 4 race wins, however with that in mind it was a perfect tie and I think it should be listed as "Joint Second" rather then "Second"

Hamilton had more second places than Alonso, so that puts him ahead. His position was second.--Don Speekingleesh (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Dennis"

I don't know anything about Formula 1, and don't know who "Dennis" is as mentioned in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.55.194 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is refering to Ron Dennis the McLaren team principal. I changed the paragraph to clarify this. sdgjake (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton picture in overview box

The new version of the Lewis Hamilton picture in the overview box was changed again to the old version again without a reason. I change it back to the new picture as it has a better quality and is a good portrait photo. The previous picture is more like a snapshot. Regards --84.161.197.25 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So what if it's a snapshot, many overview box pics of sportsmen are snapshots.

Also the 'new' picture ain't flattering and thats putting it gently. I bet even Lewis would prefer the old one.

Besides there a related photo slightly down the page with him in the middle of some other guys.

I prefer the 'old' picture as well. The new one just looked a bit daft (And the new one was a snap shot too, wasn't it? Judging from the fact its released onto wikipedia as a self made photo) Narson 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

From a page composition aspect, and also following Wiki MOS guidelines, neither is wholly acceptable, as the image should be looking inwards towards the centre of the page. One looks outwards, the other straight ahead. Regards, Lynbarn 15:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've released the following images under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Feel free to use either if they are acceptable.

Tuwile (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I've archived a load of stuff above (see the archive box). I've removed several 'should we have a controversy section discussions', but left the most recent one in case we want to go on with it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 4u. *proffers some jaffa cakes* Narson (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems Lewis has been linked to model Naomi Campbell. Just wondering how many drivers and team bosses has she had now. Mind you I suppose it gives them something to talk about at after race parties. I wonder if they all gather round over a beer and discuss Naomi's "telemetry" and the best way to drive her. ROFL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind if I do. Since they're not biscuits. :D 4u1e (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You could start a whole new controversy section on jaffa cakes not being biscuits. I made the mistake of mentioning it last time we had a VAT visit at work. Kelpin (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the Jaffa Viennese, where the cakey bottom is replaced with a hard biscuit? Cross dresser perhaps? Narson (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the cross-dressing already! I'm not even going to ask why the non-gender specific tax individuals were quizzing you about jaffa cakes, Kelpin. Written off against tax? 4u1e (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Someone will no doubt shortly point out that this page is for discussing the article, not jaffa cakes, transgender or otherwise)

Lewis Hamilton is mixed race, not Black

This page reads "Hamilton has set numerous F1 rookie records and is the first black driver to compete in Formula One.". However Hamilton is half white, which surely makes him mixed race. The following article from the BBC also confirms his mixed heritage:

see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6180602.stm

I would like consensus on this before I change anything... (81.104.246.25 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

He describes himself as black  :

"He admits that Woods is "a sensational athlete", adding: "I hope I can do the same in Formula One. Obviously, being black, it's something a lot of people talk about. If anything it's a positive - it may benefit people in the future and I understand that."

-- Ian Dalziel 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi 81.104.246.25. The topic of Hamilton's colour/ethnicity has already been discussed in some detail several times here, here and here. I believe the current content of the article reflects the consensus. But thank you very much for seeking consensus before just going ahead and making changes. DH85868993 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through the archive and it appears that they did not come to a consensus. I agree that Hamilton is on record calling himself Black. Should the article not therefore say that he self identifies as black, despite being mixed race, In a similar way to Barack Obama. (81.104.246.25 18:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

I must admit I agree with the anon here, what he self idenitifes as is somewhat irrelevent. The issue should be what he is reported as being, however, it seems most sources state black so while I disagree, it means I stand aside on the discussion. Narson 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a symbolic warning - marry a black person and have centuries of your family's history erased?--MartinUK 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're all of mixed heritage to varying degrees. Good thing too. FWIW I think it's very easy to get too excited about labels like 'black' - people use it to mean different things. Some people use it for anyone with dark skin colouring (hence the view that Narain Karthikeyan is 'black'). Others mean anyone of a generally 'sub-saharan' appearance, or anyone from a largely African, Afro-Caribbean or African-American culture, more or less regardless of ancestry. Yet others mean any of the various indigenous African peoples, or those recently or relatively 'purely' descended from them, or from a mixture of them.

An accurate and fairly supportable statement would probably be something like 'Lewis Hamilton is of mixed White European and Black Afro-Caribbean ancestry'. But that is clumsy for use in phrases favoured by the media, such as 'LH is the first black driver to....' 'Mixed race' is a not a comfortable substitution: it would be very hard, probably impossible, to establish that no other driver was of 'mixed race' (especially given that afaik, there is no scientifically agreed definition of what 'race' means in relation to Homo sapiens). For example, if you regard Slavs as a 'race', then Emerson Fittipaldi is probably of mixed race, as he has recent Russian and Polish ancestry, as well as Western European. There's also a high likelihood of Brazilian drivers being of 'mixed race' anyway, given that country's highly mixed Indigenous American, Western European and Black African population.

Is 'black' a reasonable shorthand for Hamilton's ancestry? Logically it is not. If you view 'black' as a negative term (I do not), such shorthand may also be offensive, I suppose. On the other hand, 'black' does seem to be most widely used term for someone of his general appearance and background. Perhaps the problem is that we are trying to define a single, factual label, which is probably just not an appropriate approach. Could we use a combination of the following:

• 'LH is of mixed White European and Black Afro-Caribbean ancestry' (fairly early on in the piece). Pedantic, but probably hard to argue. You probably don't even need to spell it out like this, you get the same effect by saying where his parents come from.
• 'LH has been called the first black driver to ......' to reference the many firsts attributed to him in the press. 'Has been called' is a bit weaselly, but is true and can easily be referenced. That takes the onus off us to decide what term to use - we report what is written about him.
• 'LH has self-identified as 'black'.' Somewhere in 'Personal life'?

And that's not a million miles from what we have now. Thoughts? 4u1e 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the clumsiest solution is the best 4u. I'm with you. Narson 11:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'LH has self-identified as 'black'.' Somewhere in 'Personal life'? option might be best. We could leave it as Hamilton being described as "black" on the grounds that he has identified himself as such. However, in the personal life section it could read something along the lines of 'LH is of mixed White European and Black Afro-Caribbean ancestry, yet has indentified himself as being black and not mixed race'. Having looked at the definition of 'black' on wikipedia it states that 'black is a racial, political, sociological or cultural classification of people'. He could fall under the political, sociological or cultural, even if he is not entirely of the black race which, in my view, is the common understanding of the term 'black'. any comments? (152.71.41.19 14:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)).

I wasn't really intending them as options (sorry that wasn't clear!). I think we need to use all three in different places to cover the topic properly. I know what you mean, but I also think we will need to avoid the construction "is mixed race, yet identifies as black", because some people may interpret that as us meaning that he shouldn't do so, or that it is surprising that he does so. 4u1e 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, this would be a lot easier to do if we knew anything about his mother other than that she is 'white' and called 'Carmen Larbalestier'. Anyone know of a good source of information? Google isn't helping much! 4u1e 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If only so called pure blacks could be referred to as black I doubt if there would be any Caribbean black people in the UK, black does not mean pure race (whatever that may mean) so this is a non-sequitur and he should absolutely be referred to as black, using refs to back up the statement. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right about pure race, of course: there's no such thing. And like 152, my understanding of the use of the terms 'black' and 'white' is that they're not exact terms and they cover some combination of ancestry, culture and appearance, and shouldn't be used in too precise a way. And in those terms, 'mixed race' has a large overlap with both 'black' and 'white' categories. I would personally be happy with just using the term 'black', because of the looseness of the term, because it reflects common usage, and because Hamilton himself uses it.

However, I can see that if one has a different understanding of the term, then the idea that someone who has one 'black' parent and one 'white' parent is 'black' would look odd!

My suggestions above amount to giving the backgrounds of both his parents (which is only fair, his mother's background's not really mentioned at present), mentioning that he 'self identifies' as 'black' (covered by existing content) and adding 'has been called' to the various 'first black driver to..' statement. I take 152 and Squeakbox's comments to mean that we should leave out the last one (which is a bit weaselly), so the only change to be made would be to give his background on his mother's side of the family as well. Is everyone happy with that? 4u1e 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bob Marley is another example, it may be stupid but it is how it is, if people have some black blood in the UK, as in the US, they are considered black whereas if they have some white blood they are not considered white. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

<-I've argued this point before but to no avail. Do we actually need to say anything about the concentration of melanin in his skin? What relevance does it have? Is it really notable? If so, surely we can find a better way of saying it than "black" (he's no more black than he is white) or "of mixed-race" (a term largely discredited and virtually without meaning). Do away with any mention of his skin colour would be my recommendation. It has no value here. AJKGORDON«» 15:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Although cultural background might have value.) AJKGORDON«» 08:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the actual importance of the amount of melanin in his skin I completely agree. However, like it or not, skin colour and ethnicity (perceived or real!) do have real effects in our society. Hamilton himself seems to attach some importance to it, judging by answers he has given to (admittedly leading) questions. And we need a way to put in the 'first black driver to...' stuff, because it appears so much in the media. Unsuitable as the terms 'black' and 'white' are, they are the ones most commonly used at present, including by Hamilton, even though their application is often pretty illogical! As soon as you start using 'of African descent' and 'of Caribbean descent', someone points out that there are plenty of white people from Africa and the Caribbean. 4u1e (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know, 4u1e, you're absolutely right. However, just because the press reports inaccurate inanities doesn't make it encyclopaedic. TBH I don't know what the answer is but I'm sure that some sort of reference to cultural background is more notable and worthy for inclusion rather than simply "black". The term "Afro-Caribbean" doesn't have to imply any "colour" but it's notable that he's the first successful driver from that culture. AJKGORDON«» 10:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton is of dual heritage, and under British classification terms is Mixed Race according to the 2001 census. If a 'white' person decides to declare themselves as not being white, they would be seen as being ridiculous, similarly a 'black' person. Lewis' recent ancestry is clearly from two different ethnic/cultural backgrounds, and is therefore dual heritage/mixed race. He simply refers to himself as black because of the ease with the media and possible contention from some of the black community. If he had 3 black grandparents and one white, he could be described as black, but even then if he wanted to declare himself as mixed, or 3/4 black, he is entitled to do so. We as mixed race people don't care what society's interpretation of this and that is, we're fighting for our own identity and for whites to take responsibility in recognising us as being equally associated with them as the black community, and for black people to accept that we should be entitled to refer to our full heritage in terms of ethnicity. It is not up to the white person, nor the black person, quite frankly and we as a community shall say he is mixed race, instead of it being forced upon him to decalre he is black. I mean news reports could EASILY just refer to him as the first British person of black heritage... instead of the first black person, if they wanted to get that point across. It's simply laziness in use of language, that's all it is. Yo might argue, well if he's mixed race, then he's white so he's not actually a first, but this is wrong. Dual heritage identity is an indentity within itself and is not comprised solely of the lives of sociology of the black man and the white man.Invertedzero (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

i think at the start of the article when it says where his grandparents or something are from it should say from his fathers side cause at the moment it sounds like it's from both of his familys side which is isn't, but i also agree lewis is identitfied as black in the media as it's most easier Mariah Carey is for the same race as lewis but no one in the media identitfes her as black simpley because she doesn't have dark skin Nicole Riche is also half black (from her birth parents) but not identitfied for the same reason lewis probably concereds himself mixed race but it's simpler to use black as unlike Riche and Carey is very clear he's of Afro-Caribbean desent. where as unless you where fans not many people would know just buy looking that Riche and Carey were mixed race.Veggiegirl (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Maria Carey was of Columbian or Venezualan heritage?85.158.139.99 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

He is definitely of mixed race ancestry and his own self-classification is irrelevant. Race isn't merely based on skin colour, that's a ridiculous assertion. I will make the change. Koalorka (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very odd to use the word mulatto, which is (as far as I know) an Americanism and certainly not in common usage in Britain, to describe a British driver. Leaving that aside, the source quoted states "first black driver" and therefore does not support the sentence to which it is attached as a reference. A different source is needed or the article should say "first black driver".

I've copied the following from the Barack Obama discussion page:

Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. As others have mentioned, this has been discussed multiple times in the last week or so, and who knows how many times in the last few months. Racial categories are complex and subjective and we are, per Misplaced Pages policies, going here with the racial term reliable sources and the subject himself generally use. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

I believe the same should apply to Hamilton. As per official wikipedia policy "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It is not for Misplaced Pages to decide his racial classification, Misplaced Pages must reflect the sources to which it refers. If the sources say "first black driver" then we must say "first black driver", we cannot say "first mulatto driver" if that's not what it says in the reference. Beve (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If we were to use the term "mulatto" - which I agree is an Americanism and pejorative in the UK - It would have to say "first mulatto driver", not "first driver of mulatto descent" since there is no suggestion that any of his ancestors were mixed-race. I don't agree with removing the reference, though - it is verifiable that he is widely described as black and describes himself as black. I think "black mixed-race" was the best compromise, clumsy though it is. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right - "of mulatto descent" is a nonsense statement. As for removing the reference, if you edit the sentence to match the source it just gets reverted. This presents the opportunity for a reliable source or sources to be found to support the sentence that's in the article. I'm waiting 24 hours for this to happen, or some more discussion, but actually I think there is a quite straightforward solution: "In his first season in F1, Hamilton set numerous rookie records and finished second in the 2007 Formula One Championship, behind Kimi Räikkönen. Hamilton has been labelled "the first black driver in Formula One",(multiple references) but is actually of mixed race, with a black father and white mother.(reference)"

We might not agree with that label, but Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and if the majority of sources refer to him as such (and according to one source in the article he does not correct that label himself when it is used to his face), then it stands.

Further down, we have to do something about his mother being "an indigenous Briton" too because, unless she's very, very old, I seriously doubt it. Beve (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your wording - the latest change is even sillier. "Of multi-racial descent"? Aren't we all? Jody Scheckter is a Jewish white South African - if that isn't multi-racial dscent then I'm a (cloned) Dutchman!

As for "an indigenous Briton", both his parents are that, in any sensible meaning of the phrase. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Indigenous' means 'the first group of people to live on an island. Clearly that doesn't include Lewis' dad. 'Multiracial' means having ancestors from more than one race, which (AFAIK) Scheckter does not. 'Mulatto' is recarded as an offensive term in the UK, and so should not be used. Likewise, ignoring the existance of his mother seems ridiculous.--MartinUK (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Indigenous' is an adjective meaning "originating in a particular place". Applied to a group of people on an island, it would indeed mean what you say. Anthony Hamilton is not a group of people - aplied to him in this context, it would mean "originating in Britain", which he did. Read the rest of the discussion and you will see that I have already said that "mulatto" is offensive, and that I favoured "black mixed-race", or Beve's wording above. "Mixed-race" on its own is too broad to mean anything. Most modern humans are the result of millennia of interbreeding, including F1 drivers. An assertion that Lewis was the first driver not to be entirely of single-race descent would need a lot of sourcing.

I said that the wording was silly, not you! :-) -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely on your first point (above); again, if we want to say "first driver of multi-racial descent", then we need a source that says "first driver of multi racial descent". A source proving he's "of multi-racial descent" is not good enough, because that doesn't say he's the first.

On the other point, what exactly is an "indigenous Briton"? Celt? Pict? Angle / Saxon / Norman / Viking / Roman descendents? It's not like Aborigine:Australia, Māori:New Zealand, Native American:USA. "Indigenous Briton" is the wrong term to use here. I don't know what one is and I am one (I think?). Beve (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm making the proposed change to the article. I can find any number of sources that describe him as the "first black" driver in Formula One, so even if it is not technically correct for them to do so, the statement in this article is factually accurate. I have included some (probably too many) of the most reputable: Britain's main tv broadcaster (BBC), American news channel CNN, a couple of British broadsheet newspapers and Time magazine; there are many, many others.

I also came across this article, which may be of interest to anyone who wants more of an insight into why there is strong opinion against calling him black: Calling Obama black is an insult to his mother

Beve (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So essentially hat wikipedia does is give the media even more control over what can be regarded as correct, and what shouldn't be talked about. It's disgusting! Look at any of these pages about Obama, Hamilton etc with the arguments on these boards about mixed race identity. 'Relaible sources' in Germany may have described Jews as people of Satan, and Blacks as being non human... does this mean that they are correct? Who determines what is reliable? The BBC certainly isn't reliable as far as i'm concerned. This is not democracy! 93.97.78.171 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got this pretty well sorted now. We've got references for both the msot common statement and the most precise one, all covered in one succinct sentence in the intro.--MartinUK (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep i think that's a pretty fair statement. Now if only they'd do that with the Obama article :). It's like they've got Government officers on wikipedia restricting people from editing him being 'black' :). Invertedzero (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear

About the timed lap, if you notice carefully you ll see that he cut the Hammerhead(when clarkson says "that is sort of slow and tidy"). He was inside the (faded) curbes. In my opinion he earned some time from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidass (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to editing on Misplaced Pages, so I want to throw this out there for discussion before posting anything in the article page. Lewis Hamiliton's presence on Top Gear has some relevance to The Stig, and has caused some controversy on that article page. Here is what was listed at one point, then removed. Seems like just facts are presented, though it obviously does not belong on The Stig page (at least the first part about Lewis Hamilton). Any thoughts on posting the first part of the below text, or something similar, under a new section in the Lewis Hamilton page? The second part is just interesting, if speculative.

First part:

On TG 02/12/07, F1 driver Lewis Hamilton drove the reasonably priced car and recorded a time of 1'44.7 in conditions recorded as "wet and oilly." Clarkson commented that Hamilton took a corner on "the line recommended by The Stig." During Lewis Hamilton's interview on Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson did not ask Hamilton if he was the Stig but did state "Even The Stig has to know 'How did you do that?'" when discussing Lewis' successful lap given the conditions of the track. During the same episode, it is alluded to that Lewis Hamilton is not the Stig.

Editwikipedianow (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)he can't of been the stig before that cos the stig is white, you see it in an episode, can't remember which one but you see a bit of his neckEditwikipedianow (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Second part:

The Stig's voice can be heard in this Dutch TV program (a behind the scenes show to promote Top Gear for Veronica television) interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VihIf1Fi-BM

The Stig in the interview speaks with either a British or an Australian accent. When asked why he was chosen to be The Stig and drive fast cars, he responds, "I'm the best." When asked how he became The Stig, a second man shakes his head at The Stig as to indicate 'no.'

Thank you. - StanfordCD 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know a lot of people do find this interesting, but I really struggle to see how it is anything other than extremely trivial. The first bit seems to be a very long way of saying that no-one thinks, or has any evidence to believe that LH is the Stig. The second and third bits have nothing to do with Hamilton. I cannot seen any point in mentioning any of it here.

I personally can see no merit in going into the details of Hamilton's appearance on the show, or of his lap time. It doesn't tell us anything about Hamilton himself. I know others feel differently though, so I won't remove it unless a consensus emerges to that effect here. Cheers. 4u1e 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I love Top Gear but, have to agree. It is notable in the Top Gear article, as he is the first 'top of the game' F1 driver to go around the track in his 'prime' so to speak (Yes, I say this even being a Jensen Button fan). However, for Hamilton? I can't imagine driving a crappy car around an air field really qualifies as of note for him. Narson 13:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone. I just wanted to put it out there for discussion. Maybe if Hamilton starts making some more appearances on TV shows (or sets the Top Gear record, beacuse, hey, it is a comparison against other F1 drivers), a new section can be added. "Entertainment," perhaps? Until then, we have the above text stored here. Thanks, again! - StanfordCD (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be the way to go. If Hamilton becomes more of a TV personality, then you could do a good section on it. 4u1e (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

youngest world champion

It's a good thing there's no speculation in the article of records that Hamilton 'could' achieve, but I think it would be interesting to mention that although he did not become the youngest world champion this year, he is still able to if he wins the championship next year. What's your view on this? JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of things he /could/ do. Crystal balling just opens the avenue for alot of arguing and is against rules, however if you found a cite from a news source saying that, then, it would be fine to me at least. Narson (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

David Coulthard is better than Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCoulthard (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not for making POV predictiosn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.26.177 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not too good at readin' and writin' but what's a predictiosn ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCoulthard (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I bring this to the forefront since, as of today, he is now the youngest ever F1 world champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.175.21 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Should Lewis Hamilton be described as British or English?

I've just come from the David Coultard page where he is described as a 'Scottish Formula 1 driver' (as I would have expected.) I notice immediately that Lewis Hamilton is described as 'British' and not English'. Do others agree that this should be changed? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Following a spectacular amount of discussion, WP:F1 convention is for British drivers to be described as "a British driver from England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland", on the basis that their nationality as recognised by the FIA is "British". I've updated this article and Coulthard's appropriately. DH85868993 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is accurate to say that Lewis Hamilton is English but I would prefer to describe him as British Formula One driver (look when Lewis and David win a race, the flag on the podium is the Union Jack, not the English or Scottish flags). Mxcatania (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason we opt for British is essentially that it is what the FIA do - look at all official results, and note the flags and anthems used when a British driver stands on the podium. This makes nationality easily verifiable. Other sports recognise the individual home nations, and so have different conventions. 4u1e (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

describtion of the race in China:

this all page seems to be very biased towards Hamilton. for example the Chinese race: "Hamilton himself couldn't tell the full extent of the tyre problem as raindrops were in his wing mirrors." a good driver should feel in what condition are his tyres by how the car is handling. also there is no mention of the fact that the tyres problems resulted coz he overpushed with rain tyres on the drying track (he was the only driver had such problems). and i think it would be necessary to mention that he made an unbelievible error when entering the pits too fast and beached himself into the gravel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosmark (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to some extent though, I think the part (If sourced) is ok as it says the /full/ extent, it indicates he knew they were bad but couldn't tell they were on the canvas etc as he couldn't see and had to rely on pit info. Narson (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion of his performance in that race is much the same - although the team should have taken up some of the slack, since they have considerably more experience. I don't think he did a great job in Brazil either. Bottom line is, find a reliable source that says things are as you describe, and use it to reference such an addition to the article. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Carl DAVIDSON Hamilton

I failed to find an Internet reference about Lewis Hamilton being actually called 'Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton'. Hamilton's official site says the full name is 'Lewis Carl Hamilton' (without 'Davidson'). Someone in the WP article said that the suspected full name appears in the Hamilton's Autobiography, page 33. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true, I think it should be a popular and known data throughout the Internet. Surprisingly, I googled 'L.C.D.H.', and no results were found apart from the English Misplaced Pages article on Hamilton. I do not want to create an edit war because of this, so I ask people to find a reference for Hamilton's full name. Mxcatania (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The BMD (England & Wales, Birth Index: 1984-2005) has his birth registered as Lewis Carl D Hamilton Jan 1985 Stevenage. --jmb (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems conclusive, although really the biography should probably trump pretty much anything you find on the net anyway. 4u1e (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Editwikipedianow (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)its in his autobiographyEditwikipedianow (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews

How long should we keep the links to Wikinews items? I mean, none of the current ones are exactly "news" any longer. And you have to expect there will be at least a dozen more in 2008... DH85868993 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest they can be ditched (although new ones will no doubt come along soon!) 4u1e (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

About Racism

I was in Montmeló's circuit this day (Im from Madrid) and I can say that the racist insults were a fault of a minority,Thirty persons at most.I think that it should refer in the article,since the majority of fans respected Hamilton and many of them came to extract photos with him or to obtain his autograph. I think that the article is not neutral in this point and transmits an inaccurate information. 83.43.248.128 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

86.143.152.25 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)I agree

Find something from a reliable source that confirms this. Otherwise it can't be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.25.1 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Search the web, and seek for commentss of the security chief on montmelo. Seek diario Marca, Spain. And see date.. was carnival in spain. A joke is'n racism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.211.48 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Awards section?

Hi there. I don't have any editing history with this article, so apologies if this has been discussed/edited before. I just added the Laureus Award to the lead, as there wasn't an awards section. This then got moved to the appropriate section by another editor. That section is the 'Media Appearances', which really doesn't seem right. I would have thought that a separate section on Awards would be more useful, not just for this award, but the others in that section and the hatful of them he's bound to win beyond the on-track ones. Ged UK (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I moved the sentence to "Media Appearances" because this section mostly concerns Hamilton appearing in the media to receive awards, and it looked out of place by itself in the lead. I've changed the heading from "Media Appearances" to "Media Appearances and awards" - hopefully this will solve the problem.-- Diniz (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfect to me! I only put it in the lead as a temporary place. I don't like editing section headings on articles I've had no history with if i can avoid it! Ged UK (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article lists him as having come in first place in the 2008 F1 season, isn't that a little premature? (though with fingers crossed that it will happen!) 82.153.230.138 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a footnote to the table indicating that the season is still in progres. DH85868993 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Records: Consec. Debut Podiums

Hi. Whoever added the record of most consecutive podiums from debut race has put that the previous record was two. Who acheived this, as I can find no record of it on the web or record books? Will (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Then be bold; take it out!--Ged UK (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Arundell, I think. 4u1e (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, the section now looks like a giant flag monster barfed all over it. Anyone going to object if they are pruned out? Narson (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it. DH85868993 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Salary

I believe this is worth mentioning somewhere in the article, but I don't know which section it would fit best in, maybe the lead section? - ARC Gritt 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Most pole positions in debut season

I think it's worth mentioning that Jacques Villeneuve was actually the first to score 3 pole positions in a debut season (1996), hence he should be acknowledged for the previous record holder for most pole positions in a debut season and not Juan Pablo Montoya as the article says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.234.221 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated it to say that Villeneuve and Montoya jointly held the previous record. DH85868993 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton FAC

This article was a featured article candidate and the nomination has now been withdrawn by the nominator. --ROGER DAVIES  16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 Season

The last entry for this years season reads like a play by play of the race. I think I needs to be shortened. There is no need for all that detail, surely a simple recap like the other races will do. Bigfellahull (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What usually happens is that after the season it is all summerised. Narson (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK makes sense. Thanks 80.42.199.214 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "hamiltonf1fbio" :
  • He also won the ] at ].<ref>{{cite news |title=Lewis Hamilton portrait|url=http://f3euroseries.com/newsausgabe.php?id=977 |publisher=Formula 3 Euro Series (official website)|date=2005-08-28|accessdate=2007-07-05}}
  • {{cite web | title = Who's Who: Lewis Hamilton | publisher = F1Fanatic.co.uk | date = 2007 | url = http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-information/whos-who/whos-who-h/lewis-hamilton/ | accessdate =2007-10-06}}
  • This led to a full 2002 ] campaign with Manor Motorsport. Hamilton finished third overall with three wins and three pole positions. He remained with Manor for another year and won the championship with ten wins and 419 points to the two wins and 377 points of this nearest rival, ]. Having clinched the championship, Hamilton missed the last two races of the season to make his debut in the season finale of the ]. Here he was less successful: in the first race he was forced out with a puncture,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=138456&FS=BF3 |title=Brands Hatch round 23 race report|last=Thomas|first=Stella-Maria |coauthors=Waite, Lynne|date=2003-10-10|publisher=Motorsport.com|accessdate=2007-07-05}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tax Exile?

As mentioned in the article he claimed on the parkinson TV show that amongst other reasons he moved to Switzerland for tax purposes. I think it is important for English people who support him to know that as a multi millionaire he chooses to use this to reduce the amount he contributes back.

The article mentions he's English but without supporting his country what does this mean? For these reasons and I think it should be stated at some point that he is a tax exile. Furrycushion (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

His residential status is mentioned in the next section. The lead of the article should contain the most important information about Hamilton - as a racing driver, this consists of his achievements and the unique aspects of his career - his long-term relationship with McLaren and his ethnicity. His nationality is a piece of basic information that should be included in the lead of any biographical article, and is more important than his residence for two reasons. First, F1 and other motorsports are based on nationality to varying degrees, not residence, and secondly, being a tax exile is hardly notable enough for the lead considering that it is not a rarity for F1 drivers to be in this situation.

In addition, your motivation is the view that Hamilton should "give something back" due to his success. This is just one point of view; it could be argued, for example, that he is entitled to move to Switzerland if he wants as he has earned the money required to do so, or that the British taxation system discrimates against the rich. Only putting one of these views in the lead amounts to a violation of WP:NPOV.--Diniz(talk) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it was non-notable: it's hardly unusual for a high-earner to do this (premiership footballers can't, since they have to be in the country for most of the year to actually ply their trade). We already say where he moved and when, the reader can draw their own conclusion. However, if someone can turn up a reliable source detailing a notable degree of controversy over his move to Switzerland than, sure, it could go in. (This does not include tabloid stories along the lines of "Ham in tax evasion treason shocker!!!!". That's just normal Fleet Street sensationalism.) 4u1e (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Bankrolled'

I'm not sure about the additions to this sentence, and they seem to be opposed so I've reverted them until they are discussed. The issues I personally see are that:

• It makes the sentence unwieldy.
• Bank-rolled could be seen as POV, implying he got everything given to him rather than earned or the like.
• The ref is a throwaway comment at the bottom of an online tabloid article, not exactly brilliant.

Robbo? Can you explain what you are trying to get across? --Narson ~ Talk • 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The comment is factual regarding the history of Lewis Hamilton's career and McLaren's involvement in that, quite why people continue to vandalise this article and remove the comment as well as the source surely negates what Misplaced Pages is all about. As I have previously said; it's not POV it fact, and a fact that is backed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo25 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And that isn't covered by the fact it says he signed on with them? Why do we need a poorly constructed sentence just to say the same thing? Also, vandalism is a very specific thing Robbo. Please stop accusing other editors of it. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is grammatically correct, if slightly unwieldy, though I don't think the word "bankrolled" is pejorative. It might be worth rephrasing it a little, along the lines of "signed and funded by McLaren". It does need a better ref though, I think. Shouldn't be hard to find, to be honest. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Originally it had 3 ands, which is definatly clunky. Most of the sources I've found that use bankrolled tend to do so with some qualification (partially bankrolled or bankrolled at the latter stages, one I found used essentially bankrolled, but that was something called 'F1complete.com'). We could just add a section onto the end of that sentence in stead, specifying that the YDP supplied 'financial and technical assistance', though thats McLaren's own spin on it rather than a neutral source. "Lewis Hamilton" and bankrolled only gets 384 hits, which is pretty low considering how many articles have been written about the chap, and all the duplicates. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

if the comment "bankrolled" is deemed pejorative then surely the entire section regarding him being a "tax exile" should me removed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo25 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say 'Hamilton is a tax exile', that is tabloid speak, the use of stock phrases to convey concepts in very few words. Not a good model for an encyclopedia. Our article reports what Hamilton said about tax and moving to Switzerland. I share Narson's view about the use of 'bankrolled': it's another example of moderately meaningless tabloid speak. What does the word mean that cannot be more clearly expressed by simply saying (if true) that McLaren funded, or partly funded, his earlier driving career? 4u1e (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the addition, as per Narson's points 2 & 3 above. "Bank-rolled" is non-neutral, it has negative connotations. "Funded" is a more neutral word and would be better - but unnecessary, since the article already states he was signed to the driver support programme. "Bank-rolled" here is being used pejoratively, it's clear from the user's previous edits to the article that this is the intention: (Hamilton cheated). They've also made some 'interesting' edits to other articles - and then accuse others of vandalism! (to be fair I did find one possibly constructive edit)

Removing POV from a Biography isn't vandalism. The 'tax exile' section (this actual phrase does not appear in the article) is fine. Frankly, I find it hard to see this as a genuine attempt to improve the encyclopedia, it seems more like trying to prove a point. Returning to an edit war immediately after a ban doesn't help. Beve (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems Beve is more interested in having the article satisfying their own POV rather than detailing facts. The comment shouldn't have been deleted as it's a important part of Hamilton's background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo25 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You realise that several hours after coming off an edit war block, your already back on the brink of annother 3RR breach? Not only that, but you revert non-vandal edits without explanation in the edit summary. Until there is agreement (consensus) on its inclusion then no, it stays out. The process is edit, revert, discuss. If you edit and it stays in, fine, if it is reverted then you discuss rather than constinually revert. Help us understand what you are trying to get over, talk about the points raised here. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why the comment and link shouldn't be included. You can accuse me of and edit war but you have no hesitation in involving yourself in it, needlessly vandalising the article by deleting valid additions. You conduct is a complete disgrace to this community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo25 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is you've got no intention of trying to reach consensus and you'll just keep reverting it ad infinitum? That's not the way it works, but enjoy it while it lasts. Beve (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

When you can come up with a valid reason why this fact shouldn't be included in this article then I'll accept it shouldn't, the fact remains that it's a valuable contribution and your pathetic conduct is disgraceful. Would you go into a library and start deleting facts from books because you don't agree with them? Didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo25 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This would carry more weight if you'd actually attempted to discuss any of the above objections. Beve (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Robbo, "bankrolled" is slang and has no place in encyclopedic language. It can also be easily construed as derogatory, whether or not you intend it that way, and so is not neutral. Thus its use fails the Misplaced Pages NPOV standard. Also, what do you mean by "fact"? The article makes plain that he has been funded by McLaren and Mercedes for most of his career, what else is there to say? Pyrope 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering his previous repeated edits declaring Hamilton a cheater, I think what else he'd like it to say are somewhat obvious. I'm sure that sentence could be improved, bankrolled is certainly not the way to do it. Dear God, if the best we can do is mimic the language of the Daily Mail, then we are on a fools errand here. Whats next? We adopt Mark Blundell speak and start using 'What' for 'That'? --Narson ~ Talk • 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you knew what "slang" was, seeing you don't I have nothing left to say to you. Look up "fact" as well. Good boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo25 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep a civil tongue in your head. --Narson ~ Talk • 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Slang and colloquial grammar have no place in an encyclopaedia.--MartinUK (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lewsi Hamilton to train in Algarve?

More than a decade after Estoril lost its status as being a top winter testing circuit, Portimão appears set to ‘steal’ this honour back for Portugal with news that McLaren- Mercedes is ready to set up a mini-base in the Algarve next month. With 325 days of sunshine a year, Portimão would be an obvious choice for Formula 1 teams to conduct testing and along with a state-of-the-art race track, rival Barcelona will be hard-pressed to hold on to its current title as the top winter testing track in Europe, while the foundations could also be laid for Portimão to become a Formula 1 race venue. From The Portugal News 4th October 2008 - Full article; http://www.the-news.net/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=979-1 213.58.199.23 (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

wasn't it joint second?

behind kimi and level with alonso or is there some rule to decide which of a pair of drivers with the same points is given the higher spot. Plugwash (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a rule, yes. They look at the number of wins and if they're equal, they look at the number of second places etc etc. The both won 4 races, but Hamilton had more second places so he was ranked second ahead of Alonso. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject British Motorsport articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Sports and recreation good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press