Talk:Lewis Hamilton

Why is he called "MBE" rather than "KBE"

Under his name he is called MBE which he was awarded in 2008 however in 2020 he was awarded a KBE which is a higher title. Despite this his title has not been upgraded even though he is called a "sir" above. Should it not be changed into KBE? DuxLoKi (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(I'm not an expert, but as I understand it) Hamilton is not a KBE (Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) but simply a Knight Bachelor which is a slightly different honour and does not get a post-nominal letters. SSSB (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, from what I've read, but if he is Knight Bachelor, he should not have the MBE post nominal, right? 4rkange1 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not? He is still a Member of the British Empire. Being a Knight Bachelor does not overrule this. SSSB (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. May I assume that as in the thread below, he was granted MBE in 2009, but more recently KBE? 4rkange1 (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That's exactly what happened (and quite common) SSSB (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No - MBE, then Knight Bachelor (Kt, but not used as a post-nominal unless there is a clashing title). Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

'Being the only black child racing at his club, Hamilton was subjected to racist abuse'. I think the the word 'black' in this sentence should be changed to 'mixed-race'as he is mixed race, not black. It wouldn't make sense to describe him as 'white' because his father is black, so it shouldn't make sense to describe him as 'black' as his mother is white. Liam-0060- (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the source, Hamilton describes being "the only black family." Cerebral726 (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

yes but he is wrong to describe himself as black. he isn't - he is mixed race. Liam-0060- (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether he is wrong or right is irrelevant. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources, and the reliable sources describe him as the only black family, so therefore we must too. But, it is not wrong to describe Hamilton as being black - the source is not describing his ethnicity, it is describing his appereance. Look at the definitions of "black" at the Cambrige dictionary, and you will notice that when describing a person using "black" as a noun (you will need to scroll down a bit) ethnicity doesn't come into it at all - and for none of the relevant definitions is ethnicity a requirement. SSSB (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Subheadings for "Other ventures"

I think it would be a good idea to organize the "Other ventures" section into subheadings such as Music, Movies/Films, Fashion, Sports, Business Ventures/Restaurant

I would like to hear other's thoughts before making any changes. Thanks! PREDESTINATO (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2024

2024

On 7 July, Lewis Hamilton claimed a long-awaited – and record-breaking – ninth British Grand Prix victory at Silverstone, holding off a challenge from Lando Norris to take the win. The win was an emotional one for him - his first victory since the Saudi Arabian GP in 2021, ending a 56-race streak. The day was also historic for other reasons. Aged 39 years and 182 days, Hamilton became the oldest F1 race winner of the 21st century. It was his 12th consecutive Silverstone podium, and his 15th in total at the venue, extending his F1 record for a single circuit. Hamilton is the only driver to have ever won a Grand Prix beyond their 300th start – this was Hamilton's 344th. Mulauter75 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 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. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Koppite1 and DualSkream: I agree with DualSkreams edit. The argument made in your comment [1] that "already covered in the body of the article" does not match MOS:LEAD, which states The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The 2021 controversy is a critical, career-defining moment in Hamilton's career, as much as his 2008 final race championship-clinching win, if not more so. Him going winless for 2.5 years in 2022 and 2023 are worth mentioning, as well as his most recent win. It is actually a huge problem for this article that 2021 isn't even characterized at all in the lead. Therefore, I think the relevant sentences should read:

Hamilton surpassed 100 race wins and pole positions in 2021, a season where he narrowly lost the championship to Max Verstappen in a controversial finish. Two winless seasons followed in 2022 and 2023 before he ended the drought with victory at the 2024 British Grand Prix.

Cerebral726 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO, sounds unnecessary. I don't think these are the sort of facts that we generally include in the F1 article ledes. For instance, we don't mention that Alonso has gone winless for 12 yrs in the lede of his article (which arguably, is a bigger story than Hamilton going winless for 2yrs) or that Vettel went winless in 2014 after dominating the sport for many years in his lede. So, why do it for Hamilton? Anyway, at least you have opened up a discussion so other editors can give their view and a consensus reached.

Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is a weak argument. The question is whether the context of those 3 years is important to his career, which it self-evidently is. It's possible other articles could be similarly improved, I have no idea since it's not what we're talking about. The addition of two sentences bringing the lead in line with the current content in the body, and paralleling the due weight of the 2008 and 2014-2016 championship fights seems to be an obvious improvement. The lack of 2021 content is especially egregious, but the entire addition is valuable. The lead is also not too long right now, so can take some expansion without concern per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not an invalid argument, however much weight we do or do not place on it. Seems odd that we have tons of other notable drivers that have gone through various winless streaks (some much worse than Hamilton's), but there's not the same rush or urgency to highlight this in their respective ledes. IMO, it doesn't belong there (in the body of the article, yes). Anyway, you've opened up the discussion. Wait for others to contribute. Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

If your concern is WP:OTHERCONTENT, add similar sentences to those articles. For any driver with wins, and simply breakdown of when they scored those wins is relevant. For any driver the context of any Formula One season is important to their career to some degree. It is relevant to Bottas' lead that he hasn't won since 2021. Although for Hamilton those 3 years are the least important because he played the smallest role in winning (championships or races) and it isn't notable for underperfomance because he wasn't underperforming, the car was.

The reason there is not the same rush or urgency for other driversis a combination of recency bias, success bias (people visiting and editing drivers who are successful, both recently and over entire careers) and nationality bias (English editors and readers are more likely to edit the pages of English drivers).

My part of the suggested edit I have issues with are with the context around the word "drought". What does/doesn't quantify a drough depends heavily on context. So the first question that comes to mind is "what drought?" Because in most context 2 winless seasons is not a drought. Therefore, we either cut the word drought (which adds nothing but sentiment anyway) or we can say "Two winless seasons followed in 2022 and 2023 before he ended the victory drought at the 2024 British Grand Prix."

My next issue is with the WP:EGG link. We wikilink the words "a contraversial finish", but don't link to the finish, we link to the final round, the better way to write this would be "a contraversial season finale. SSSB (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the input. How about:

Hamilton surpassed 100 race wins and pole positions in 2021, a season where he narrowly lost the championship to Max Verstappen in a controversial season finale. After the first two winless seasons of his career in 2022 and 2023, Hamilton took victory at the 2024 British Grand Prix.

Cerebral726 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That works. SSSB (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So, it would be ok to e.g. go onto the MSC page and add to the lede e.g. 3 winless seasons before retiring in 2012? Or onto the Alonso page an emphasise that he's been winless since 2012 in his lede? It's messy...and this adding of winless streaks has never been an issue before, so why start now. I'm inclined to just leave it out of the ledes altogether. As for 2021, i'm more inclined to phrase it as per on the Massa page "finished as championship runner-up in 2008." The word "lost" to and "controversial" are not words to use in a lede. For instance, we don't see on Schumacher's page that he "lost to Fernandao" in 2005. There's too much departing of the normal phraseologies being applied to Hamilton's lede. Koppite1 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources consistently describe the end of the season as controversial: [2][3][4] we follow the sources. Why on Earth do you think the word "lost" can't be used in a lede? Additionally, the winless season is notable because it was his first ever: [5][6]. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

.Why use the word "lost" to when on every other driver page, it's described as finishing runner up or finishing third? Why is Hamilton being treated differently? There is far too much departing from the norm being proposed. It can and will get messy. I think we need to wait for more feedback from other contributors before any amendments. Koppite1 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

My response to most of your posts is "why not?"

Writing "lost" means something very different to "finished runner-up". "lost" implies that at some point they were in a position to win. Which is true and give much more meaningful context than "runner-up". Perez finished runner-up to Verstappen in 2023, but the 2021 situation was entirely different. Hamilton is being treated differently (ironic you are making that claim as you add records to List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton, but the equivlant and/or equally obscure records aren't mentioned for other drivers. but that's not relevant so I'll strike it) but Hamilton is just the page on which this is first being proposed (see my earlier comments about all the biases in play).

"So, it would be ok to e.g. go onto the MSC page ..." It's only messy because you phrased it as though it were a standonly statement. We need to integrate such statements, which I think the proposal does quite well. In fact, if I were re-writing Schumacher's lede from scratch I would say things like "Schumacher lost the 2005 and 2006 World Championships to Renault driver Fernando Alonso." and "Schumacher came out of retirement in 2010, and spent three years at Mercedes, during which time he achieved one podium finish (third at the 2012 European Grand Prix), and finished as high as 8th in the World Championship (2011)." Likewise, I would suggest that Alonso's lede absolutly should mention that his most recent win came at the 2013 Spanish Grand Prix (the lead should of course also mention his active years in F1)

Can you also clarify your opposition to the word "contraversial"? Becuase describing the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix as contraversial is no more contraversial than saying a year has 12 months. It is entirly accurate, entirely fair and completely neutral, because we don't give an opinion on it either way.

Your opposition appears to be based purely on "this goes against the status quo". This flies in the face of one of Wikipedia's core ideologies: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Your attitude does nothing other than stop Wikipedia articles from evolving. We make a bold change here, and then we can roll it out to other pages too. SSSB (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it would be neutral to only mention the season finale of 2021 in the lead. The title is decided by what happens during the entire season, not just in one race. The season also featured controversial moments that disadvantaged Verstappen, and to only highlight one controversial moment that disadvantaged Hamilton implies that he lost the title because of it, when in reality the situation is more complex as there were controversial moments that disadvantaged/benefited both. I think it would be better to keep it simple in the lead (e.g. by just stating that he "narrowly lost" or "narrowly finished runner-up") and let the article body explain the situation in detail.

Regarding the "lost" versus "runner-up" debate, I think "runner-up" is slightly more neutral given that "lost" emphasises the failure to win whereas "runner-up" implies that he did not win but still managed to beat all the other drivers. Carfan568 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I see your point that it might be not be neutral to focus on the one event. However, that doesn't mean we can't quantify that the 2021 season as contraversial, instead of focusing on the one event.

As for your "lost" vs. "runner up" argument, I disagree. Yes "lost" emphasis the failure to win, which is the point, and an accurate representation of how reliable secondary sources cover the event (the only question mark here for me is: are the reliable secondary sources neutral (i.e. would non-English sources characterise it the same way)). If reliable secondary sources place the emphasis on not winning, instead of ephaising finishing second, then the neutral thing for us to do is reflect that; regardless of where we think the emphasis should be. I don't think emphasising one over the other is neutral by default. SSSB (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)