Talk:Lewis Hamilton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Huge Edit

I am planning to complete re-do this page with as much information as possible, Lewis Hamilton is my stepmothers brother so I can receive information from her and also Lewis' mother. Perry 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Right, if anyone hasn't seen this...then DO SO!! [1] --Skully Collins 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

- but do bear in mind the wikipedia guidelines re. no original work, notability and citing references! regards, Lynbarn 08:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hairline

Anyone know what's going on with that hairline of his? Does he shave it?! Damiancorrigan 12:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

He is half Eurpean, hairlines like that are typical in people of mixed ancestry. Who really cares though?

Place of Birth

Someone has changed his POB to Tewin. He was in fact born and bred in nearby Stevenage, but currently lives in Tewin. Perry 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

His biography (http://www.mclaren.com/theteam/lewis_hamilton_biography.php) says he was born in Tewin. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It now says Stevenage (http://www.mclaren.com/theteam/lewis_hamilton_biography.php) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.140.169.7 (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

It does. BBC and Yahoo say Stevenage. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. How do we know which is correct? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lewis is my stepmum's brother, and while that is not valid proof, I can assure you that while currently residing in Tewin, he was brought up in Stevenage, hopefully some valid information can come through soon. Oh well it doesn't matter really, it's just a shame that so many articles contradict one another. Perry 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've cited Stevenage, using Reuters as reference (BBC Caribbean has him "from Stevenage"), since there is no hospital described in Tewin (but the telephone box is mentioned), Stevenage is a more likely birthplace. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible he was born at home. I would have thought the hospital at Welwyn Garden City is closer anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could be - looking at Google maps, they're all only about 10 km apart - hardly worth arguing over. At the moment the lead says one thing and the detail another, with {{dubious}} next to it, but that's the one that's cited! Anyone from England who can go over and knock on the door and ask? We have reliable references for both, so we might as well pick the right one. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in Stevenage so I could... but it would be original research! And anyway, we already have a bit of original research above! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We have reliable references for two different places of birth - do you know what we're supposed to do to avoid WP:OR in this case? --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe list both on the article? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

His McClaren page (http://www.mclaren.com/theteam/lewis_hamilton_biography.php) and the 2005/6 official site's profile section (http://www.lewishamilton.com/page1.asp) currently give his birth place as Stevenage.Cj the mighty 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub

Is it time to upgrade this from 'stub' to full article? Fasterthansound 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A stub is a short article that can be expanded. As it's no longer a short article, I've removed the stub templates. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Family History

This article states that Hamilton's parents came to the UK from the West Indies in the 1950s. I suspect this should read "his father's parents", since Lewis's mother is white. Bretonbanquet 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

References are conflicting: Grandfather, father's parents, paternal grandparents, grandfather lives in the western parish of St John's, grandparents emigrated from the Caribbean island of Grenada, parents emigrated in the 1950s. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

God. Though I think it's fair to say it's clear that it can't have been his parents since his mother doesn't come from there - his father maybe, or his father's parents, but not both Lewis' parents. Bretonbanquet 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The dates make it unlikely that his "parents" emigrated, as they would have been toddlers at best in the 1950s, which appears to be the universally accepted date. I've cited BBC Caribbean, but the Reuters reference just before also supports that his father's parents emigrated. Perry, do you know whether his grandfather (your step-grandfather?) moved back to Grenada or never left it (nationnews.com link above)? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would the fact that the mother was white make it impossible that she (or her parents) had lived in the Caribbean? Maybe she isn't from the Caribbean, but her race couldn't be the fact to show this. -*Ulla* 07:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

First Black?

Hamilton will be the first black driver to compete in Formula 1

Is this really correct to say? He isn't only black, but half-black and half-white. He is certainly not the first mixed gent to race in F1. Would it be more proper to perhaps say he is the first with some black ancestry, though I don't know if that is even really true. You'd have to research that no previous F1 driver has some African blood?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.183.214 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The BBC has been describing him as the first mixed-race driver of African or Afro-Caribbean ancestry. Since all humans have African ancestry, it's most accurate to say 'recent African or...'

Since current evidence indicates that humanity evolved in Africa, all people have African ancestry. All Mediterranean nations have had a lot of population exchange with Africa. For example, the Islamic invasion of the Iberian peninsula injected a large dose of African ancestry into modern Spaniards and Portuguese. Some Africans look more like Colonel Gaddafi rather than Nelson Mandela. The world's not black and white.

Indigenous Caribbean people are of a different ancestry to the African people who were taken there over the Atlantic as slaves: it is important to state Afro-Caribbean, to distinguish his lineage from that of the almost extinct indigenous Carib indians.

It is not true to say that he will certainly be identified as the first black driver: he is not black, for all that some people categorise him that way.

Newspapers and magazines are the 'sources' used to justify labelling the lad black at the moment: they are not reliable or authoritative sources of information. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow unreliable sources, does it? Seems to me that calling Hamilton 'black' is dishonest racial politics.

The sources say he will be the first black driver to race in F1, although they do not agree on the finer details of his ancestry. If you have reliable sources to cite that say something different, it's certainly reasonable to present a cited view that he's not black according to some people. To completely remove the claim that he's black, we'd probably need retractions from the same sources that said he is (or we could change it to "He was initially reported to be ..."). I write this with the assumption that The Independent is considered reliable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I follow you on the sourcing bit, etc, etc. Note that I am not suggesting to remove the claim that he's black -- but stating here that he is only black (which that sentence implies) is incorrect and is unfair to his ancestors. So here we are in a bit of a bind then, because there are plenty of references that tell us what his ethnicity is; then we have an article from reliable The Independent that says he is the "first black"; as you point out. Maybe it would be best if there weren't such trivial things said in the first place and simply kept the discussion to the individual, but that is another debate. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.181.210 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree, but "first black..." is going to reported in the news at least until after he is "first black F1 champion", and probably until there are several "black" drivers. Maybe Lewis Hamilton will stop being "first black..." when someone with no "white" blood gets there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the ignorant media, it can't be helped. And unfortunately, this website operates by, "verifiability and not truth." Which I think is complete bullcrap. Shakam 06:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "He will be the first driver with prominent African or Caribbean ancestry to compete in Formula One?". Incidentally, there have been many Japanese drivers, a Thai prince, an Indian and a Malaysia of Chinese and English descent, but nobody of even vaguely Afro-Caribbean appearance or known ancestry, no matter how small. I guess calling him 'black' has an element of one-drop-rule type thinking, which should've died out a long time ago.--MartinUK 23:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the sentence you have come up with actually, though I'd probably leave out the Caribbean bit. As far as African ancestry goes, are there no drivers from the Americas or France that have some African blood? Senna, Montoya, etc.?

JPM is possible, although I'd say native American descent is more likely. Senna is a long shot at best. The only other dark-looking competitive F1 driver I can think of is Clay Regazzoni.--MartinUK 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you go far enough back we're all of African descent (See Homo ergaster!). Isn't Afro-Caribbean the normal UK terminology (used on census forms and the like) in the UK? HIs ancestry isn't directly from Africa, going by the references. 4u1e 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The available references say "black". They don't actually indicate that his paternal grandfather was "completely" black, or whether any of his other grandparents were of "Afro-Caribbean descent". For that matter, they don't actually say that his grandfather was Afro-Caribbean rather than native Caribbean (Indo-American) either. We don't have access to his complete pedigree, so must make do with what we have. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I tend not to get too excited about 'of XXXX descent' categories. On the assumption that I'm fairly typical, few of us have much idea of who our ancestors were more than 2 or 3 generations back, and appearance isn't much to go on. The number of ancestors gets very big very quickly as you go back, so if you go looking you'll probably find ancestors from some quite unexpected backgrounds without too much trouble. Unless there's a general Wikipedia policy on 'ethnic' terminology, you're right - go with what the references say. Cheers. 4u1e 08:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't even look black, unless you live in America though. Shakam 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter wether he is black or not? He is a great driver and he is good looking, let's leave it at that. -*Ulla* 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure lot of talk about his ethnicity, I see him as one of many successful Brits in F1. RGDS Alexmcfire

It may be an arguable fact (oxymoron) that he is the "first black to compete..." But why is it even relevant? Last I checked there is a zero correlation coefficient between the immutable variable melanin and being able to operate an F1 vehicle, write Java, or dribble a basketball (I'm not that well read so perhaps someone could provide a few references to the contrary?) Do we say Kimi Raikkonen the 38th Finnish or blonde-haired male driver? No. Does it matter? No. Uhm, yeah...well uhm...it shouldn't. It shouldn't because you're there to watch brilliance, fearlessnes and steely focus at work in a fast machine. Does it matter if his name is Sato or Heidfeld or Lewis? I think no, most think yes because..."he doesn't look like me or my kids so...". So it's naive of us to think that someone's appearance/ethnicity doesn't matter, it obviously does since the public consumes millions of pictures; and embedded in those pictures are the messages associated with ethnicity based descriptions of these and other talented individuals. So? So we are naive if we think appearance or perceived appearance doesn't matter. It does. There are studies to prove that it does even when the person is UNSEEN (Chicago Study, Wisconsin Study).

What this statement exposes is the tension between objective research and the public's need to have information in bite-sized recognizable chunks. The fact that someone can write that he's "black" inherently means that Hamilton is either like the author and the author has identified her/himself in that bite-sized recognizable chunk or Hamilton is unlike the author and the same cubby-holing has occurred.

Even in racing, race is a big issue.

And so the browning of the earth continues and everyone needs to know the ancestry (and NOT the content of their characters?) of a growing number of "different" people who are leading/winning life's races? Those who are culturally myopic will continue to require this differentiation to make themselves feel better (?), and will summarily get left behind whining (or worse calling for policies to correct the "imbalance") by those who simply go out and win races or better yet understand the content of the character that is required to excel in situations like F1.

What am I saying? Leave it. Mendel was right. As Tony Dungy said after winning the Superbowl

-"It's not for a lack of talent..."

In F1 racing, what matters is how good you are, not what your skin colour is. But part of the 'how good you are' is 'how good you are at getting on with people around you'. So the colour of your skin only matters if you run into people who care about it, but motor racing people mainly only care about motor racing performance on the whole.

The human population of the Earth is not getting brown: the vast majority of people on the planet are brown of skin (most Asians, north Africans, native Americans, and Polynesians), and it seems like it's been like that for all history (who knows about prehistoric times? Not enough data). It's only a minority who count as black or white; 'white' seems to come from Europe, while 'black' seems to come from sub-saharan Africa, and both look like equivalent deviations from the norm.

<soapbox> Why does this article have to mention the colour of this mans skin, or the details of his ethnicity, culture, background or antecedants? The picture says all that needs to be said. As for first black driver..., first recent afro-caribbean.. what is this about??? These are not records, these are statistics, and anything can be proved (or disproved) with statistics!

None of this makes any difference to the key facts; He is British, He is an F1 Racing car driver and, from what we've seen so far, considering his age and relative inexperience, he has worked very long and very hard, and he is VERY good at it. 'nuff said. </soapbox> Lynbarn 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He's mixed, but the bottom line is that to evveryone he's black. End of story.

Final?

On the table on the bottom of the page, it says the "Final" Standings for his 2007 F1 series is third place. Only one race has taken place, so it is not final at all. Should this be fixed? Downatball5432 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps put in an asterix and "up to round 1" etc... Fasterthansound 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Formula 1 Section

The information partaining to Hamilton's performance in the Australian GP '07 is given in the 'Formula 1' section, and then repeated in the '2007 Onward: McLaren' subsection. Am I the only one to notice this?

Related to Ron Dennis?

I've seen the suggestion on an internet forum that Ron Dennis is in fact his mum's brother, which would explain why such a young driver received huge financial support from a young age. If false, it would be easy to disprove (Lewis' mother's maiden name?) - if true, it's big news. Anybody know either way?--MartinUK 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It is definitely false. "Suggestion on an internet forum" is all you need to read to know it's false! 60.241.17.88 12:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Welwyn & Hatfield Times

You lot that are interested and are editing Lewis's article might want to keep close tabs on the Welwyn & Hatfield Times, for this is also the main local paper for Tewin. They will no doubt have a lot of useful information and you can probably contact them for other things like place of birth. Give them questions to ask Lewis, ect. [2]. Govvy 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 WDC position after Bahrain is third

There have been a number of edits concerning Hamilton's current position (T-1st or 3rd) in the 2007 F1 World Driver's Championship. Article 7.2 of the 2007 Formula One Sporting Regulations states the following:

If two or more constructors or drivers finish the season with the same number of points, the higher place in the Championship (in either case) shall be awarded to :

a) the holder of the greatest number of first places,

b) if the number of first places is the same, the holder of the greatest number of second places,

c) if the number of second places is the same, the holder of the greatest number of third places and so on until a winner emerges.

d) if this procedure fails to produce a result, the FIA will nominate the winner according to such criteria as it thinks fit.

Out of the three drivers who have 22 points, Hamilton is the only one without a win, so he is placed lowest (3rd). Alonso's one win and one second place beats Räikkönen's one win and zero second places, so they are 1st and 2nd in the WDC, respectively. Please keep this procedure in mind for this and any other situations in which drivers or constructors have the same point total. Majin Izlude ^talk 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While I have no strong opinion on the matter - I believe Equal 1st (T-1) etc... is correct as from my understanding the tie-breaker procedures are only applied at the end of the season. So technically he is equal first. However I've not made any edits to this effect as I can plainly see that "If the season ended today" he would be 3rd. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the championship is only awarded at the end of the season! If none of the three scores any more points, Hamilton will be third. I have no strong feelings about which way the position should be shown either - I do, however, have strong feelings about people editing one article and not the other two, so that they are left in a contradictory state. -- Ian Dalziel 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Just wondering weather it is possible to have a nicer picture of Lewis as the current one is really clear.MotorSportMCMXC 20:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The current photo is of appalling quality! This hardly befits a man of Lewis's stature - sort it out!

As a photography student myself, all I can say about the title photo is...underexposed, blurred and lacking in the white balance side (too yellowy for non-photography people). Obviously shot by somebody with a diddy compact camera who forgot to switch on his flashgun, although I'm not a flashgun enthusiast myself (make a bright multi coloured photo look dull), but the least I can say is better than a poor quality photo.

For anybody in the UK, if you want to take a photo of him, sans helmet, try this year's Goodwood Festival of Speed as the website has confirmed that he is coming on Sunday 24th June, just get a good photo in the paddock area before the bodyguards and autograph hunters close up on him like they do on all other F1 drivers. Willirennen 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference

The page http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/whos-who/whos-who-h/lewis-hamilton/ is used as a source in this article, but it appears to be a self-published fan website. As such it may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. In particular, WP:V states, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". --Muchness 19:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thus the word "fanatic". Its a fan site. With respect to the site, there is no way it should be used as a source for bio info when there is so much from trusted or long-standing sources. I would suggest finding other reliable citations where fanatic has been used and replace them one-by-one. I dont doubt the info is false, its just verifiabilty issue - and that is key. aint it.Whataboutbob 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Im also going to add this to external links. May be useful...

• In-depth interview from The Observor's Sport Monthly magazine Whataboutbob 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I am the author and, unsurprisingly, I disagree. The piece on my website (f1fanatic.co.uk) was written based on considerable research of the subject from a range of sources as well as my observations of his career. F1Fanatic is a site for fans of F1, not necessarily fans of Lewis Hamilton, and it has a large amount of other articles on other topics that I assure you are very well researched and should be considered reliable. I haven't heard any complaints of factual inaccuracies in my Hamilton biography. On the rare occasions that factual errors have been pointed out on F1Fanatic I have always put them right. 193.243.130.14 08:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That link mentioned above, to a page on f1fanatic has (along with other bio pages) been returning a 404 error for about a week, so it should perhaps be removed until that is fixed, in any case. Regards, Lynbarn 11:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-information/whos-who/whos-who-h/lewis-hamilton/ 193.243.130.14 08:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing the quality of the article, its accuracy or underlying research. However, it is a self-published article on a personal website, and per Wikipedia's verifiability policies, we shouldn't use it as a source for a biography on a living person under any circumstances. --Muchness 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your point of view. What is a 'personal website' and why is F1 Fanatic one and not, say, the Observer's? Both have multiple contributors, one is just smaller than the other. I'm afraid the distinction smacks of snobbishness. I don't doubt that some people write garbage on websites and then link to it on Wikipedia - but punishing the rest of us for their idiocy is cutting the nose to spite the face. Sorry to force the issue but as I think it's pretty clear I put a lot of work into it and I'm loath to see it deleted on what seems like a very petty technicality, when we've agreed that the material is sound. I've written a lot for other F1 topics on Wikipedia which I think has been decent quality and this does nothing to make me want to continue contributing. 81.154.251.24 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Place your bets now...

...on how long it takes someone to "find" evidence of Irish heritage. ;o) 86.17.211.191 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fastest Driver to claim Pole?

It can be proven that he is the second youngest driver to claim his first pole, but given it only took him 6 races to do it (could even be sooner), did he take the least races ever to claim his first pole?TimHowardII 10:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he's the third youngest (behind Alonso and Barrichello). Villeneuve took pole in his first F1 race. DH85868993 10:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of modern era (post 1965), was that Jacques or Giles?

Jacques DH85868993 10:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario Andretti also had pole in his first race. There was a third too - can't remember who though. (It may just have been Farina in the first race.) --Don Speekingleesh 11:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Reutemann. -- Ian Dalziel 11:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the one. Thank you.--Don Speekingleesh 12:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs huge edit too!

Sorry you blokes, but it looks like most of you never learned to write proper English at school. Commas in the wrong place—incomprehensible sentences because of poor punctuation and sentence construction—and so on.

Does the following sentence mean that his father named him—or both his parents named him after Carl?

Quote: His mother Carmen, and father Anthony (who is now a successful IT Consultant) who named Lewis after the US Olympic gold medal winning athlete Carl Lewis unquote.

How about doing this: His mother, Carmen, and father, Anthony who is now a successful IT Consultant, named Lewis after Olympic gold medal winning athlete Carl Lewis?

Then add: They separated when he was two. (keeping sentences short)

Otherwise: His mother, Carmen, and father, Anthony, who named Lewis after the US Olympic gold medal winning athlete Carl Lewis, separated when he was two. (you can create a new page for Anthony Hamilton if you wish to expand on his attributes)

Or try: His mother, Carmen, and father, Anthony who named Lewis after the US Olympic gold medal winning athlete Carl Lewis, separated when he was two. (if you want to indicate that his Dad was the naming agent in the mix)

I could go on, but this was the bit that was most confusing. If you want to insert the right bit I'll go through and fix the rest of it for you.

Lin 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Startline Techniques

I don't think there is a need for a section on Jacques Villenuve's opinion in an encyclopedia article. I will check this section later to see if anyone objects, otherwise I am deleting it. Should we have a section for every former driver's opinion in the wiki articles of each driver? should we add a section for villenuve's opinion's negative opinions of other people in the sport? The Dunnie 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all please sign your posts. I agree with you. I don't believe this section warrants inlcusion in an Encylopedic article. It's just on ex-drivers opinion. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

agreed; not notable, and not necessary. regards, Lynbarn 15:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So what is the procedure then? I don't just want to delete and then see it show up again The Dunnie 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Give it a day or so (to allow more editors to view this discussion) then if a consensus to remove this section is reached - delete it and included the comment "as per talkpage" or similar in the summary. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it ;-) -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would personally like to see this section stay, because it is a notable opinion, Villeneuve won the 1997 title after all and five drivers did come out and defend Hamilton. Plus, with all due respect, by Rehnn83's logic, then Michael Schumacher's quote in the junior Formulas section should be taken out because it's an "ex-driver's opinion".--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 06:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it has to be taken into context. Villenueve is an out-of-work driver, it's his home Grand Prix, he knows that a comment about the current talk of the town (i.e. Hamilton) will ge him noticed. Following GV comments the rest of the F1 world has come out and said "What a load of rubbish". It is only a matter of time (if it has not happened already) that the Sun Newspapaer reports "Hamilton has slept with a prosititue/rent boy/horse/etc.." and then Weried World News will report that "Hamilton is an Alien from the world of Naboo" - do we include all of these? The section has removed - it should be re-inserted if a consensous can be reached to re-insert it. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 08:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be a helpful way of thinking about it: Will it seem relevant in 10 years time? 4u1e 12:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding relevance in 10 years time, it is also on ex-driver's opinion on a driver after 6 races! The Dunnie 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the JV comments per NPOV policy (undue weight) under a section titled "Reactions". Wikipedia simply reports on what has been said about Hamiltion. Villeneuve's comments are taken from a reliable source and its up to the reader to form his opinion on the matter. --Madchester 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think that right now, this is relevant information about an emerging driver. Time may may it more or less so, but that's part of the glory of Wikipedia; it can be edited when that day arrives. Tim 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Madchester I disagree with your re-insertion. I believe the Context is that 1 person has said this and the rest of the F1 Paddock has said what a load of rubbish - shut up Jacques. However I'm not going to remove/revert your edit until/unless a consensous is agreed upon (or the comment becomes non-notable (which it may do in a few years)). -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE may be relevant here. 4u1e 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has raised issue with the credibility of the source. Regardless of where the information comes from, this is still Jacques Villenuve's opinion. Should I go search for other ex driver's opinions on hamilton and devote a section to their comments as well? The Dunnie 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create a Wikiquote article on him instead? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 12:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with the edit. Not because I don't feel the content should be included, but because it's a hypocritical edit. It IS giving undue weight to the criticism. I've placed the text, completely unedited, into the F1 section. My rationale is that the praise he has received far outweighs the criticism, and thus if a section is there about criticism there should certainly be one on praise.

I haven't actually created these two sections because I believe such a system would increase the potential for POV. BeL1EveR 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Signing for McLaren

Was he signed at age 11 or age 13 to the McLaren driver development programme? The comments in the Personal & early life section conflict with later comments under the Formual One heading. stan matthews 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He was eleven according to the BBC website.

Hi I wrote the original line in about him being 13. According to McLaren's press pack issued at the start of 2007 he was "signed by McLaren and Mercedes-Benz to Young Driver Support Programme" in 1998. That would put his age at 13. 86.143.175.202 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

copying telemetry?

user:Gdaph recently added the following comment...

But behind this early success, there are people around the F1 that are starting to accuse him of copying two-time champion Fernando Alonso's telemetry. The proof of this would be his good-but-behind-Alonso performances on Friday's practices, after which he would study the telemetry of his teammate to nail it on Saturday's qualifying session. This does not necessarily try to discredit Hamilton's success, but gives evidence that is very easy to start your rookie year in one of the best teams in F1, with probably the best car in the competition and access to a double world champion's telemetry. Hamilton has been very lucky in the first races of the season. Let's just see what happens when pressure and bad times come.

I have removed all but the first sentence, and added a citation needed tag. I don't know where this originated from, but looks rather out of place in an encyclopedia. How can you copy telemetry in any case? - telemetry is the remote monitoring of various sensors, so that readings can be acted upon, often in real time, and alterations made to components on the car. Seems to me that if the team aren't going to use them to improve performance, they aren't much use! Any thoughts please? Regards, Lynbarn 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think until a source and in particular a person is found this should be removed from the article as it unsubtantiated. Divinewind 21:12, 16 June 2007 (BST)

I totally agree, that line is out of context and I've removed it.VincentG 20:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How can someone copy telemetry??? Come on... Do you know anything about racing? Telemetry contains all data about the car's performance, including timing, so you can know exactly when and where a driver used brakes, throttle, etc. Hamilton has access to that information, then goes to the simulator and trains to drive the way his teammate does. And then you will ask me... why does he take the pole position if they have the same car and drive the same way? Because Hamilton modifies the configuration of the car for the qualifying and changes it for the race, something that Alonso does not do 'cause it is barely legal. Gdaph 19 June 2007

Legal is legal and not legal is not. As far as I remember changes between qualifying and the race are now fairly limited, but those that are allowed are legal (by definition). I am bewildered by your insinuation (unsupported by any reference, by the way) that Hamilton is doing something wrong here - the cars are in parc fermé between the end of qualifying and the race, the stewards keep a very close eye on what is changed. Are you suggesting that Alonso is not making changes that he is allowed to out of a sense of honour? Or that Hamilton's mechanics are somehow pulling the wool over the steward's eyes and making illegal changes in parc fermé? 4u1e 08:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would add that Alonso's and Hamilton's driving styles are fairly different - by gross simplification Hamilton is reported to prefer a slightly oversteering car, while Alonso prefers understeer. If true this would make it unlikely that the car settings are simply copied across. 4u1e 08:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment - IIRC - copying telemetry (from your teammate) is a standard pracice in F1. Teams regularly compare telemtry data (usually to see why one driver is slower than the other). Without the ability to copy (i.e. Share) data there would be no need for Friday's Third Driver. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Gdaph, a little! Okay so you can copy it into a simulator, I'll give you that, and I guess he could, by default, feed the same settings into his own car, but in the end, the telemetry can only effect the technology and the mechanics. Hamilton is at the wheel, he is driving the car, and if everything else is the same, then the difference can only be in the drivers. But moving on from that, where is the evidence to support your comment - do you have a reference? Your final sentances sound a bit like a quote from a live commentary, but not one I heard in the UK - is that it? Ask yourself another question, WHY is he in the best team?, with the best car? and learning from a double world champion? maybe - just maybe, because they can see something in him that makes it worth their while? For what it's worth, (a small amount of) my money is on him to win the championship! Regards, Lynbarn 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The telemetry is of use to the driver as well as the car and mechanics - if your teammate is taking a certain corner faster than you, braking later or perhaps in a different gear, it is extremely useful to see what is possible with the same car. It is then easier to emulate your teammate's performance. (edit: Knowing what is possible and being able to do it are quite different things though!) The sharing of data goes both ways of course and is normal practice. Gdaph's comments may be those of someone not familiar with the sport, or may be a garbled repeat of the valid point that Hamilton has access to the full resources of one of the best teams in the business. Which he has (IMHO) earned with his performances in lower formulae. Cheers. 4u1e 14:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

English?

Most people would say he is British, not "English". Reeks of POV to me.

Generally, I would agree, but in terms of sport, it seems to be the the norm for UK or British sports people/teams to represent their country, rather than the nation as a whole, as witnessed by two of the categories listed at the foot of the page. Regards, Lynbarn 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As he is representing Great Britain in Formula 1, shouldn't he be referred to as British?

I don't believe he is officially representing GB - unlike the newer A1GP series, which is based on national teams and national drivers (and does have a GB team & driver}, F1 is team-based, and there are a number of constructors' teams that are based in England. Although we English like to claim, for example, David Coulthard as British, in F1 terms, he is more properly Scottish, and is listed as such in Wikipedia articles. See also the articles for Jenson Button and Anthony Davidson. Regards, Lynbarn 23:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But then, they hoist up the Union Flag when he wins a race. Bit of a mess really! 86.143.175.202 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely Drivers should be listed as where the hold their racing licenses from, Coulthard holds a British racing licence so should be listed as British similarly so should Lewis Hamilton. Nico Rosberg is Finnish but he holds a German licence and races under the german flag.

Nico Rosberg is not Finnish, he was born and raised in Germany, and can only speak basic Finnish. Eastlygod 08:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Lynbarn, Hamilton does indeed represent the UK, not England. So does Coulthard, so did Eddie Irvine, Tom Pryce and Jackie Stewart. See the most recent discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#UK_Nationality. Button and Davidson should also be listed as British, as should Coulthard. The longstanding consensus at WP:F1 is that drivers are listed as British, not English, Scottish etc. This is how they are listed in official results - see the TV coverage - and at www.formula1.com. In international motorsport drivers compete for their passport nationality, and you can only have a UK passport, not an English one. See Damon Hill and Tom Pryce, which are FA standard articles.

The anonymous editor above is sort of right, in that below the international level, a drivers nationality is decided by his racing license, rather than by his passport. There are no English racing licenses either. Rosberg holds dual German and Finnish nationality, iirc, but has chosen to race under his German passport. I imagine that at the lower levels of the sport he raced on a German racing license. Cheers. 4u1e 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon., (please sign your posts with four tildes in future - makes it easier to see if you are one editor or several) It does to some extent depends on the competition - as I said before, in GP, a driver represents his constructor/team. However, if you are prepared to alter the 135 or so drivers currently categorised as English, plus the equivalent Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, (another 20 or so, all told) etc. that are currently recorded on Wikipedia, then please do so. Regards, Lynbarn 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Lynbarn, as I said above - the anon editor is correct in their assessment. No-where (OK, that's a bold statement, but I certainly haven't seen it anywhere ;-)) in any official documentation are any drivers referred to in results as being English/Scottish etc. It has nothing to do with the team's nationality (Edit: The driver does not represent his constructor/team - otherwise Alonso would be scoring for the UK. The driver's nationality in official results is determined by his passport). Now, that's the situation for the infobox, actual references in the text can be more flexible of course, since an English driver is also British, by definition. If any infoboxes say anything different then they should be changed. Cheers. 4u1e 18:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant regulation is at para 112 of the FIA International Sporting Regulations. I got it slightly wrong earlier - in international competition a driver competes for the country which issues his racing license (British, not English, in this case), for FIA championships it's the passport nationality of the driver (Also British, not English, in this case). As I say above, none of this prevents us from using the terms 'English', 'British', or 'Stevenage' as alternatives to vary the text when referring to Hamilton in the text, but he does compete for the UK officially. Cheers. 4u1e 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree the Infoboxes and the summary paragraph at the start of an article should use the terminology 'British', however after that the driver can be referred to in regional terms to prevent repetitiveness within the article. P.S. I am the person who referred to Rosberg earlier, apologies for not signing my comment.Divinewind 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro no longer makes sense

The intro claims that "Hamilton has set three Formula One records in quick succession." It then goes on to state two records and two "almost records", and it's hard to see how to get three out of that. The third "record" was originally "first black driver to [do something or other]" but that got deleted I assume. Rather than me wading in, maybe someone more familiar with the history of this material could fix it to make sense? Matt 02:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

I've re-worded the intro, with more emphasis on the actual records he holds, but also highlighting one (most wins in first season) which is potentially in his grasp. Hope that makes it more appropriate. Let's see how he does later on today! Regards, Lynbarn 14:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done for being bold, although a record "potentially within his grasp" doesn't belong in the lead. I've hidden it for now and have condensed the rest of the information into two paragraphs, rather than six one sentence paragraphs. BeL1EveR 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

F1 Section Trim

I think the F1 section needs some careful editing, it is turning into a news archive of hamilton's first season. I think essential information should be sufficient to create an informative article, currently there seems to be a lot of waffle and info that could be obtained from the individual race reports if someone was inclined to do so. Do others agree?

Yes. This is a problem common to many F1 articles and, I daresay, articles on other sports. People like to get in with the updates but editing them into good copy is tricky. Like the above discussion on Villeneuve's remarks, for example. 86.143.175.202 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. There will inevitably be a degree of updating, and as a general rule this should be treated leniently in the short term (i.e. for the first few days after a race and/or end of season, depending on how notable it is), but longer term there's far too much detail and much of it isn't significant. BeL1EveR 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - although it's usually easier to do somewhat after the event, when the significance (or more likely otherwise :D) of events has become clearer. 4u1e 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dividing the F1 section?

I propose that the F1 part has a subsection on records. I haven't been bold and actually done this on the basis that it'd involve a total rewrite of the entire section and because in the aftermath of the race there are a lot of edit conflicts right now. Thoughts? BeL1EveR 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there really enough content? Just a thought. Anyway, if you're looking for a precedent, there's a similar section in Michael Schumacher, so I can see no reason not to have one here. One plea though (after lengthy debates on MS): Please can we have real records, and not the rather strained ones that some people indulge in (i.e. first left-handed driver to finish 5th three times in a row in a leap year ;-)). Ta. 4u1e 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The precedent I'd set would be that being the first driver with Afro-Carribean roots doesn't constitute a record, but being the first driver to achieve seven consecutive podiums in his first seven grand prix, or first rookie to win consecutive races from pole, most certainly do.BeL1EveR 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's for me to judge, but I don't disagree with either of those, they're straightforward enough. Cheers. 4u1e 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no objections so... done. What does everyone think? BeL1EveR 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)