[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Lewis Hamilton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLewis 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.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 5, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
September 13, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 26, 2018Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia'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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024 and more

[edit]

Second sentence of article should start with he, not Hamilton. And why is the infobox image the Mercedes, not Hamilton? I checked 3 and a half hours ago when it still had the Hamilton picture 2603:8080:D03:89D4:78DA:157D:86D6:5FD0 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be “he was won…” 2603:8080:D03:89D4:9135:EF57:ED2D:911 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry with Max Verstappen

[edit]

Not sure if this has been discussed before or not, but it seems odd that Max Verstappen is not included in Hamilton's "Rivalries" section, having been fairly bitter rivals for four years now with a highly controversial title battle amongst them. The same here applies for Felipe Massa, although it makes more sense including a three-time World Champion in the list alongside Alonso, Vettel and Rosberg, as this list is very much incomplete without him. Mb2437 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides 2021, when were they bitter rivals? The reason that Verstappen isn't mentioned here is because a rivarly of one year doesn't justify discussion beyond what is already in the 2021 section of this article. SSSB (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VER and HAM have clashed in as many seasons as all of those drivers, making contact or racing hard in several seasons e.g. 2016, 2018, 2022 and 2024, with Verstappen deemed by many sources to be the natural successor to Hamilton's dominance. I get that they've only had one real championship affair but I think the bitterness and memorability of it supersedes that. The public will remember his rivalry with Verstappen far better than his rivalry with Vettel, which I believe calls for its inclusion. Mb2437 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamilton has clashed with dozens of drivers across multiple seasons. Thats the nature of racing in a championship where the majority of drivers have extended stays. That doesn't make a rivalry. If sources exist which describe a rivalry spanning multiple seasons, I would not opposed (at this stage) but from my perspective these do not exist. Sources I have seen simply describe the rivalry lasting the one season, because they have only really competed in similarly performing cars for one season. Most of the time one driver battles past the other because they are out of place, and they are both excellent at battling, and unwilling to yield resulting in "making contact or racing hard". SSSB (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alonso's only real claim to inclusion is 2007, with 2010 and 2012 fairly close but not memorable for their bolstering their rivalry. Only 2007 is mentioned in the Alonso section. Without clear inclusion criteria, it should be decided on memorability, whereby Verstappen should absolutely be included amongst his greatest rivals. Mb2437 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be defined by the extent of discussion amoungst secondary sources, not our personal feelings. If sources exist that explitly mention a rivarly, then add a section. Otherwise, we can't. SSSB (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they exist. Rivalries sell papers. Whether it’s notable in the same way as rivalries with team-mates, I have my doubts. Personally, I don’t think I’d describe Vettel as a notable rival either. Btljs (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Strongly agree. Mb2437 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:EDITORIAL. SSSB (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You can Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Changes were made to the lead as per this consensus. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

[edit]

Hospital where Lewis Hamilton was born. Hello9898989898 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dawnseeker2000 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source for this on simple Wikipedia if we need one. However, I just don't see it as relevant. Why is this something worth mentioning? SSSB (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2024

[edit]

Change "braking" to "breaking" in second paragraph of Top section:

His third and fourth consecutive titles followed in 2019 and 2020 to equal Schumacher's record of seven drivers' titles, also braking the record for most wins during the process. CloudPath (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I've corrected the typo, but you'll need to provide a source for your statement. ⸺(Random)staplers 01:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([1]) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree it should be at least mentioned. Mb2437 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree FormulaFreak1 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA Mb2437 (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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 [2] [3] ([4] apart from this one apparently), but "one of the greatest performances in Formula One history" would be less so [5] [6]; 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_Hamilton&oldid=1260144905"