Talk:Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry

Creation of page

There are two main reasons I believe this should have it's own wikipedia article:

• Firstly, the rivalry section at Lewis Hamilton's article is very large for a subsection of an article which is now approaching 300,000 bytes, meaning we're getting into the territory of templates starting to stop working as happened on Cristiano Ronaldo earlier this year.

• Secondly, if pages dedicated to the rivalry between James Hunt and Niki Lauda are notable (which I believe they are), then this rivalry has all the same elements and is therefore notable. The main argument made for a previous (and I may add, less well written) version of this page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry was the the rivalry in question was not 'old enough' as it was less than 100 years old. This argument does not seem a relevant 'measure' of the notability of a rivalry, particularly when you consider rivalry articles such as the Federer–Nadal rivalry which is well under 100 years long, and has GA status.

Formulaonewiki (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody claimed it must be at least one hundred years old. One-hundred-year old football rivalries were merely cited as an example. There are guidelines regarding rivalries and the AFD came to the consensus this rivalry doesn‘t meet them. If an article is deleted via AFD you need to discuss with that community before recreating it in complete defiance of procedure. The rivalry was already inactive at the time of the AFD and I can’t really how it has involved since then.Tvx1 17:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you direct me towards the guidelines regarding rivalries? I would be interested to hear why you think the rivalry between James Hunt and Niki Lauda passes notability guidelines and should not be merged into either drivers' respective articles, but this one should not. Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Where did I ever state that I think the Hunt-Lauda articles passes? I never mentioned it in any of my posts. You are the only one who keeps referring to it. Please read WP:OTHERCRAP. That article is not the point of this discussion. But, if you must, I'm not convinced it does pass. I can't see much evidence that it's independently notable. It's merely a copy of the differences with the movie. Back to this article. The guideline is WP:NRIVALRY and that refers to WP:GNG. There is little evidence that this is a proper notable rivalry rather than some spats between teammates.Tvx1 13:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe there is evidence that this is a notable rivalry, as unlike the previous article that existed and was deleted (which you seem to not realise is entirely different to this one) there are various reputable sources and news publications which describe and analyse the rivalry in-depth. If that is your only argument for deletion (that it does not meet notability requirements) then I disagree, as does the evidence and coverage referenced in the current article, which I will reiterate, is entirely different from the previously deleted article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Any copy/paste here?

Hi Formulaonewiki, just in case you weren't aware of WP:Copy-paste#How about copying from one Wikipedia article to another?, I thought I'd just mention that for content licensing reasons you need to ensure that any content copy-pasted from another Wikipedia article is appropriately attributed. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware (I hadn't actually read that). I actually did more of a 'cut and paste' if you like, given that the majority of this article was what I had initially written on Lewis Hamilton. Having written and referenced all the stuff previously, I'm confident that the content is all correctly attributed to a reference. If you've noticed any errors or corrections needed do let me know and I shall fix them. Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the referencing, but attribution of where it had been copied from that was missing, but I see you've added an edit summary to cover it now. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WT:F1 discussion

FYI, there is a discussion at WT:F1#Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry concerning the contents of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted as it does not fall under the G4 criteria for speedy deletion as it is not substantially identical to the deleted version, and therefore the previous reasons for the deletion of that page no longer applies. As for the reasons why this page exists, the main reason was that Lewis Hamilton, as outlined in it's recent good article assessment (which was passed) was especially long (approaching 300k) and it was suggested that spin-off articles could be created. This section seemed like the best candidate for that. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It also says "any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". That is very applicable here. And I strongly contend that is article is the best candidate to solve the problem of the other article given that the subject of this article was previously judged not to be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. It rather suggested that the section in the article should have been trimmed down considerably instead of it being blown up even more in an other venue.Tvx1 00:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

The NPOV discussion, where the neutrality of this article is being discussed can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulaonewiki (talk • contribs) 2018-12-21T09:37:22 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, the POV issue is this: the article is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article. It goes out of the way to criticise Rosberg whilst also defending Hamilton at length. It's little more than a comparison of Hamilton and Rosberg designed to point out why Hamilton really was the better driver all along. 1.144.104.201 (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

For the 'uninitiated', the above comment is by an editor who frequently edits from multiple IPs without any effort to demonstrate some consistency, is incapable of producing one coherent argument, and has demonstrated themselves to be unable to objectively assess the article. It is quite clearly far more than an extension of the Hamilton article and presents a balanced POV. However, the editor above seems more set on spamming their upset about the article anywhere they can instead of doing anything meaningful or productive to resolve or amend any issues which they believe exist. Formulaonewiki (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. This talk page is intended for discussion of the article, not the contributors.Tvx1 15:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the AfD, the article fails NPOV, as evident in this paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix:

When Rosberg, on fresher tires, closed the gap to Hamilton, Mercedes asked the British driver to move over, knowing the German would have to pit again before the end of the race. Hamilton refused, reasoning that he had battled through from last position and that he was not prepared to slow down to let Rosberg through. Hamilton's decision meant he held on to third, keeping Rosberg at bay in the final stages after his pit stop. Niki Lauda spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right."

This breaks NPOV because it only speaks in support of Hamilton. It offers a single opinion supporting Hamilton's actions, but does not offer any justification for that opinion. The article really should address the following questions:

1. Who is Niki Lauda (it is the first time the article mentions him) and why do his words carry weight?
2. Why did Lauda think Hamilton was in the right?
3. Who, if anyone, spoke against Hamilton, and what were their reasons?
4. How did Hamilton and Rosberg address the issue in public?
5. How did Hamilton's decision affect his relationship with Rosberg?
6. What measures (if any) did the team take to manage them in future?
7. How did those measures (or lack thereof) influence the relationship?
8. How would Hamilton slowing to allow Rosberg through affect his race, and what did Hamilton think the effect would be?
9. What did the team expect would happen if Hamilton let Rosberg through as planned?

As it is, the article details an incident in which Hamilton disobeyed team orders, and his decision affected the race result. In providing a defence from Lauda, the reader can infer that his decision was controversial (why else would Lauda need to defend him?). However, the article only provides a defence of Hamilton and so the reader may come to the conclusion that Hamilton's actions were justified. That to me breaks NPOV because it is leading the reader to a conclusion: that Hamiltion defied team orders, got a better result out of it, and that he was completely justified in doing so.

However, you claimed that there was no need to address this in the AfD because it was an NPOV issue. Here we are having a discussion about NPOV, and now you're claimimg there is no NPOV issue because you don't want there to be an NPOV issue. Having the AfD vote "keep" doesn't vindicate every issue with the article. This is a mix of WP:OWN and WP:ILIKEIT.

Can you provide an answer to the nine questions above? They are nine perfectly valid and objective questions. 1.144.104.93 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Here, I will break it down so you understand exactly what the paragraph is missing:

At the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix, Rosberg qualified on pole while Hamilton was forced to start from the back of the grid when a fuel leak set his car alight in the first session of qualifying. Hamilton began to fight through the field before a mid-race safety car shuffled the order, putting Rosberg behind Hamilton but on a different strategy. [what was the new strategy?] When Rosberg, on fresher tires, closed the gap to Hamilton, [how did he do this when the article points out that Hamilton had better tyre management?] Mercedes asked the British driver to move over, [when did they do this, both in terms of lap number and Rosberg's position to Hamilton?] knowing the German would have to pit again before the end of the race. [when did they anticipate this would happen?] Hamilton refused, reasoning that he had battled through from last position and that he was not prepared to slow down to let Rosberg through. [when and where did he say this, and what were his exact words?] Hamilton's decision meant he held on to third, [but Mercedes anticipated Rosberg needed another stop—how did Hamilton's assessment of the strategy differ from the team's?] keeping Rosberg at bay in the final stages after his pit stop. Mercedes [who within the team said it—Toto Wolff, Dieter Zetsche, Pete Bonnington; who?] strongly suggested after the race that they felt that Hamilton's blocking cost Rosberg, his main championship rival, victory. [how does that work if he needed another stop?] However, Niki Lauda, non-executive chairman of Mercedes, [what makes a board member qualified to make this assessmebt?] spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right", [why did he feel this way?] and no disciplinary action was taken by Mercedes after the race regarding the incident.

As it is, this paragraph amounts to "Hamilton defied team orders, but he was justified because somebody said so". You cannot reasonably claim that the paragraph is well-written when it does not even point out that Niki Lauda is a former World Champion and an outspoken critic of team orders. 1.144.104.93 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody in the discussion (which you have pointlessly copied and pasted parts of here) felt you have provided any evidence of NPOV in the article. All you've highlighted here is that you believe there should be more detail in parts of the article. That is not a NPOV issue, and is something you can easily edit yourself if you believe the extra detail and answers to your long list of (in my opinion, unnecessarily detailed) questions. Formulaonewiki (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"All you've highlighted here is that you believe there should be more detail in parts of the article."

And that lack of detail is what's causing the NPOV issue. The article makes it clear that there was a controversy, but it only provides the defence of Hamilton. In order to be balanced, the article needs to outline why it was controversial, what sort of criticism was raised and the defence. 1.129.111.228 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see any NPOV issue. The POV in the article is properly attributed. If there is an alternative and reliably sourced point of view missing, then bring it to the discussion. Without having an alternative to POV to discuss, there is surely no dispute. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to draw your attention to these two passages. First, Monaco 2014:

Some pundits made suggestions of foul play, to which Hamilton, when asked if he thought Rosberg had crashed on purpose, replied "Potentially. I should have known that was going to happen". However, the stewards cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing and team boss Toto Wolff refuted the conspiracy theory as "bull". Despite this, Hamilton made clear that he felt Rosberg had ruined his lap on purpose and, after starting and finishing the race second, announced that he and Rosberg were no longer friends.

Notice how the article dedicates a significant amount of time repeating Hamilton's opinion of Rosberg's actions. Now consider Hungary 2014:

Hamilton refused, reasoning that he had battled through from last position and that he was not prepared to slow down to let Rosberg through. Hamilton's decision meant he held on to third, keeping Rosberg at bay in the final stages after his pit stop. Mercedes strongly suggested after the race that they felt that Hamilton's blocking cost Rosberg, his main championship rival, victory. However, Niki Lauda, non-executive chairman of Mercedes, spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right", and no disciplinary action was taken by Mercedes after the race regarding the incident.

Why is there no discussion of Rosberg's opinion about Hamilton's actions? According to the team, Hamilton's actions cost Rosberg a win, so what did he have to say about it? If he said nothing, then the article should point out that he said nothing.

NPOV issues arise when coverage of the subject is unbalanced. Here we have a clear case of two separate instances that are not being treated equally in the article. How do you explain that? 1.129.111.224 (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 1.129.111.224, Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, if you can show there are reliable sources giving alternative views from other notable commentators, then we can try to agree what the balance should be. Currently all you are doing is repeatedly (and disruptively) trying to force your non-reliably-sourced personal opinion into the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No, what I'm trying to do is highlight the issues with the article so that everyone involved in the discussion can contribute to it. 1.129.111.224 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV isn't only created by adding unsourced content. NPOV can also be caused by a biased selection of sources.Tvx1 15:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and the only way we can know that is by seeing sources with differing views; hence my request for: reliable sources giving alternative views. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV issues are clear from the text of the article alone. Look at this:

Some pundits made suggestions of foul play, to which Hamilton, when asked if he thought Rosberg had crashed on purpose, replied "Potentially. I should have known that was going to happen".

It's a clear use of weasel words, which the policy holds up as words which may introduce bias. "Some pundits"—who, exactly, said it? There need to be multiple instances of this, since the article uses "pundits" in the plural. With no sources, no rebuttal and an emphasis on Hamilton's opinion (which is also unsourced), the article clearly suggests that Rosberg did it deliberately despite the stewards taking no action.

The language of the article alone demonstrates bias. When Hamilton is the centre of a controversy, the article downplays it and emphasises the defence of him. When Rosberg is the centre of a controversy, no defence is offered and he is clearly made out to be responsible whatever the stewards ruled. If there was just one instance of this, then an alternative source would be required—but it's throughout the article, clear as daylight. 1.144.111.154 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider the following—this is an example of a neutral passage from the article:

"While both drivers blamed each other for the incident, the stewards deemed it a racing incident reasoning that Hamilton had been justified in his attempt as he was 17 kilometres per hour (11 mph) quicker than Rosberg coming out of Turn 3."

Now look what happens when I rewrite it:

"While both drivers blamed each other for the incident, the stewards deemed it a racing incident despite Hamilton being 17 kilometres per hour (11 mph) quicker than Rosberg coming out of Turn 3."

Both versions contain the same three key points: that Hamilton and Rosberg blamed each other, that the stewards deemed it a racing incident, and that Hamilton was 17kp/h faster on the exit of Turn 3. The key difference is that I have deliberately used "despite" as a preposition and this fundamentally changes the passage. In the first version, the stewards have taken Hamilton's speed relative to Rosberg into consideration and come to the conclusion that it was a racing incident—but the second version implies through the preposition that the relative speed was not taken into consideration and from this the reader may conclude that if it had been taken into consideration, a different outcome might have been reached. Both versions contain the same three key points, but they present those three points very differently and that's how the article can lose neutrality. 1.144.111.0 (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that if any of the "words to avoid" have been used that they should be copy-edited out, which is generally quite a simple change. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that if any weasel words have been used, then the attribution needs fixing, if possible, else the specific content needs to be reconsidered. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

But it's more than just the occasional weasel word—the above is just one example of how the language of the article can introduce bias. Take, for instance, the paragraph on their upbringings:

"Rosberg, an only child, was born in Germany but brought up in Monaco and was the son of the wealthy former Formula One world champion, Keke Rosberg, whereas Hamilton was born on a council estate in Stevenage, and his father had to work multiple jobs to fund his son's junior racing."

This presents Rosberg as a wealthy, privileged child who easily made it into Formula 1. Hamilton, on the other hand, comes from an under-privileged background, but makes it to Formula 1. This is consistent with a Grand Narrative, the narratives that we collectively tell ourselves.

Have you ever seen The Mighty Ducks? It's about a group of underprivileged inner-city youth who have the raw talent to succeed, but lack discipline. Meanwhile, their rivals are wealthy and use that wealth to unfair advantage. The film hinges on the idea of the audience supporting the Ducks because they're the underdogs—without wealth, all they have is talent and they use that talent to win the kind of respect that their wealthy rivals can never get. It's a prime example of a Grand Narrative; audiences are sympathetic to the Ducks because they embody the qualities that the audiences themselves would want to have.

That introductory paragraph is doing the same thing. Rosberg comes from a world of wealth and privilege having always been surrounded by Formula 1—a world that is alien to most of the audience and so we are less sympathetic to Rosberg. But Hamilton lived on a council estate and his father worked multiple jobs, and that is something that the audience can relate to. The audience is more sympathetic to him because of it and for the same reason why we support the Mighty Ducks: because we love an underdog story. We love stories about people overcoming hardship to achieve the impossible. The issue with the paragraph is that it does not provide enough context—there is no clear link between their upbringings and their rivalry. And without that clear link, the paragraph appears to be doing nothing more than linking the drivers to the Grand Narrative and presenting Hamilton as the more sympathetic of the two—a theme that continues through the article where Hamilton's controversies are downplayed (Hungary 2014) and Rosberg's are presented clear as day (Monaco 2014). 1.144.109.179 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

On the whole it seems okay to me, I don't think there's much that can't be fixed with a bit of judicial copy-editing. But THB, I just cannot keep up with your long screeds, of often quite repetitive stuff, and with changing accusations. I'd be interested to see the opinions of other editors think. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"THB, I just cannot keep up with your long screeds"

That's a bit insulting. My day job hinges on the analysis of language. I'm simply trying to put it in terms that are succint and easy to understand. Yes, they're lengthy by Wikipedia standards, but I can give you the full version if you would prefer. It usually takes me a week to fully address things like Grand Narratives. 1.144.109.92 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think that paragraph can be expanded with more information on Hamilton being entered on the McLaren young drivers’ programme and had a quite priviliged run of his own through the youth series culminating in his entry into F1 with a team capable of fighting for the title straight away.Tvx1 23:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — the one question that I want an answer to (and which no-one has yet provided) is this: how did the upbringings of Hamilton and Rosberg shape their rivalry? It's discussed in the lead so the article is pointing it out as significant, but it doesn't establish relevance. It doesn't even establish their path into Formula 1; both of them had success in the junior categories, including winning the GP2 title.

By pointing out that Rosberg came from a privileged background and Hamilton from a humble one in the lead on an article about their rivalry, it suggests that their rivalry had something to do with their upbringings. Did Rosberg feel threatened by Hamilton's natural talent? Was Hamilton jealous of the ease at which Rosberg could realise his dream? What in their background made them feel so compelled to beat the other? I cannot find any sources to support this, so why is it even in the article? 1.144.109.5 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well that's the whole point why this article was deleted once and why it was nominated for deletion. They didn't really have a personal rivalry with each other. In fact during their junior days they even got along pretty well. They were just teammates competing against each other. The more I think about the more I fell as well that the contested paragraph has little relevance. It's most certainly not lead worthy. Their path through the junior series can be addressed in the body, but the part about their fathers professional activities can really be left out.Tvx1 16:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Judging by its wide coverage in reliable sources, their rivalry is clearly notable, which is why the article wasn't deleted the second time. And, as I said about the challenged paragraph in the lead in the similar discussion at WT:F1#Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry, It adds context, and is reliably sourced, though, perhaps, not adequately attributed, and should probably be in the body, rather than in the lead which should summarise the article rather than have content not explored in the rest of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:

"It adds context"

Some, yes, but it does not do a particularly good job of it. Once again, I have to ask: what is the relationship between their upbringings and their rivalry?

"and is reliably sourced"

That does not automatically make it relevant to the subject. There is no clear link between their upbringings and their rivalry. I cannot find any sources that establish such a link. 1.129.106.191 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It sets the scene, it's a bit of background info for the reader. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

So is their argument over which episode of CSI: Miami is the best episode, but that doesn't automatically make it relevant. 1.129.110.160 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's background to the drivers and not to the rivalry. IMHO it belongs in their articles. Background to their rivalry would show where an when they first competed in rival wain motorsports.Tvx1 22:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I agree with that and would even take it one step further and say that "background to their rivalry" means discussing the incident(s) that triggered their rivalry.

I'm still not convinced that this is even a rivalry. Based on the article, they were competitive in karting and then competitive as team-mates. There is a big gap in between where nothing seems to have happened. Compare that to other sporting rivalries where there is a clear inciting incident; something that triggered everything. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It is background to the rivalry. Hamilton is recorded as having suggested that his background and relatively humble upbringing gave him a greater hunger than Rosberg, contrasting it with Rosberg's more privileged upbringing.[1][2] -- DeFacto (talk). 11:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto, you are not correctly representing your sources. Hamilton didn't say that the had greater/more hunger but rather had different hunger. And no matter how you twist it, that is purely Hamilton's opinion. What on earth did he now about what was going through Rosberg's mind? How is that hunger even quantifiable? What did he actually know about how hungry/determined Rosberg actually was? What was Rosberg's say about this? Sources like that should just be avoided. Moreover, one your sources contradicts itself. If has a section labeled "they are not friends" only for a Hamilton tweet being posted below the article quoting him that "they are still friends". As pointed out in the DRN discussion, we should focus on presenting the simple facts and let our readers make up their own opinions.Tvx1 18:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Per the source, Hamilton was explicit: "I want to be the hungriest guy in the cockpit" (my emphasis), I was correctly representing the source. It is clear that the difference in backgrounds helps fuel Hamilton's competitiveness, and that is reason enough to add the context by summarising their backgrounds in the article. The aren't friends/are friends is another indicator of the heightened competitiveness resulting from the deep-rooted rivalry. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Hamilton is recorded as having suggested that his background and relatively humble upbringing gave him a greater hunger than Rosberg, contrasting it with Rosberg's more privileged upbringing."

None of which is in the text of the article, so your point is moot. 1.144.105.30 (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It's clearly background to the rivalry. There are direct quotes from the drivers themselves and analysts and pundits that explicitly detail their childhood rivalry and the subsequent reflection of that into their Formula One rivalry. Once again, it is irrelevant whether or not you think this is 'even a rivalry' or not. The discussion has been had, you've had your say, and the consensus and overwhelming evidence against has demonstrated that there quite clearly is. Formulaonewiki (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"There are direct quotes from the drivers themselves and analysts and pundits that explicitly detail their childhood rivalry and the subsequent reflection of that into their Formula One rivalry."

Not in the article.

"The discussion has been had, you've had your say, and the consensus and overwhelming evidence against has demonstrated that there quite clearly is."

I cannot find a single source from a publisher outside Britain that calls it a rivalry. So is it a rivalry or Rule Britannia with new lyrics. Not that I blame them, given the curiously British habit of commemorating a crushing defeat in poetic verse; wins are few and far between. But the whole "rivalry" smacks of flag-waving by the British press, especially compared to other rivalries. If the Senna-Prost rivalry is Formula 1's Thrilla in Manila, the Hamilton-Rosberg rivalry is two second-graders brawling at recess. 1.144.105.30 (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring your unnecessary, derogatory and inflammatory remarks about the British, you say you cannot find a single source from a publisher outside Britain that calls it a rivalry. Don't you have access to internet search engines Down Under, or do you just not know how to use them? I managed to find dozens from the US, Canada, Australia, India, Ireland and New Zealand within a few minutes. Here are snippets from a selection of them:

• "...theirs [Hamilton's and Rosberg's rivalry] can now be counted among the great rivalries of Formula One, alongside Nigel Mansell and Nelson Piquet, Niki Lauda and James Hunt and, above all others, Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna." - The Irish Times, 25 Nov 2016
• "... the rivalry between the two [Hamilton and Rosberg] Mercedes team-mates drew comparisons with the feud between Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost." - The Economic Times (India) 24 Dec 2014
• "This week Rosberg suggested his own long-standing rivalry with Hamilton, which started when they were teenagers in karting, had added friction..." - The Economic Times (India) 13 Feb 2017
• "With just seven races left in the 2016 race calendar, the rivalry between him [Rosberg] and Hamilton is set to intensify as they take to the Marina Bay Street Circuit - a prospect that excites Rosberg." - CNBC (US) 15 Sep 2016
• "Mercedes is considering unleashing the rivalry between teammates Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg in a bid to spice up Formula One." - Fox Sports (US) 28 Dec 2015
• "... a continuation of the bloodthirsty rivalry that has formed between the Mercedes-AMG Petronas drivers [Hamilton and Rosberg]." - Road and Track (US) 25 May 2014
• "It seems the greatest beneficiary of Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton's sophomoric rivalry might actually be the grid's other drivers." - Road and Track (US) 25 Aug 2014
• "Lewis Hamilton's mastery on the track in winning the British Grand Prix was matched only by the deftness of the Englishman's comments as he left Silverstone, which suggested that all is not resolved in his rivalry with Nico Rosberg." - The Age (Australia) 8 Jul 2014
• "Lewis Hamilton adds spice to Nico Rosberg rivalry" - The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) 23 May 2014
• "Meanwhile, Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff insists that the comparing his drivers [Hamilton and Rosberg] to the acrid rivalry between Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost at McLaren 25 years ago scenario is off-base." - The Globe and Mail (Canada) 2 Jun 2014
• "Lewis Hamilton says he is not surprised by Nico Rosberg's shock decision to quit F1 - but says he will miss their fierce rivalry at Mercedes." - The New Zealand Herald 3 Dec 2016.

-- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Ignoring your unnecessary, derogatory and inflammatory remarks about the British"

Unnecessary? I think not. The entire WikiProject relies far too heavily on sources published in Britain. And that's a problem because they are oftentimes overtly biased—such as the time the BBC's Andrew Benson suggested that Hamilton would be entirely justified deliberately crashing into Rosberg if it meant winning the title; the same Andrew Benson who was ready to crucify Vettel for hitting Hamilton in Baku.

Derogatory? Hardly. They're certainly true. The general attitude of British fans is appalling; a mix of arrogance and entitlement, as if the sport owes Britain something. Don't believe me? Take a look at the BRDC's "management" of Silverstone. Do you know why Bernie gave the race to Donington? It's because the Silverstone pits were leaking and the floor was not level with the pit apron and the BRDC refused to fix it. Well do I remember you trying to claim that Red Bull is a British (rather than Austrian) team—an argument I have only ever seen made by British fans trying to claim Red Bull's success for Britain. Weirdly, they're less concerned about Force India being British.

Inflammatory? I don't deny that. I've spent the best part of a month repeatedly pointing out the NPOV issues with the article, only to get "it's reliably sourced so there are no NPOV issues" in response (even though RS and NPOV are not mutually inclusive). At least now you have gone out and done something that you should have done a month ago. 1.144.108.17 (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Responding here vs. DRN to help facilitate. Everyone has their own perspectives and bias. There's even system Wikipedia bias. The idea is to push from all sides to reach a neutral, balanced point of view. To be productive, I suggest proposing specific changes, including rewording and introducing different opinions and points of view from alternative sources. I don't see tne participants insisting on maintaining a biased point of view in the article. What I see is "a lot of heat and very little cooking". I gave specific feedback about how to improve the article in the DRN and here, including proposing rewording of specific sections that were contested. The feedback was positive, and yet no one is introducing this new text into the article. Participants in the debate should discuss these and other proposed changes, and when consensus is reached, go ahead and change the article. In future, once there is less friction on NPOV, editors can be bold and make direct edits, bringing discussion back to the Talk page when there is disagreement over the new change. If there is bias in the British press about this topic, either find sources that makes that argument and introduce press bias on the rivalry as a topic in the article, or find non-biased alternative points of view, and update the article to provide more balance. Coastside (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Coastside: I agree with what you're saying, especially about bias. Sources can be reliable and biased. The art is in giving appropriate weight to the varying reliably sourced opinions. To be able to do that though, we need to see the range of opinions that are out there (i.e. someone needs to find them and bring them to the discussion). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"To be able to do that though, we need to see the range of opinions that are out there (i.e. someone needs to find them and bring them to the discussion)."

Which is precisely what I have been asking for this past month. I have repeatedly outlined points in the article where there are NPOV issues arising from the language used, questions about sources and missing content. At every juncture I have been told that I need to provide alternative sources and while I appreciate the importance of that, I have been left with the distinct impression that editors feel no need to address said concerns until sources are provided rather that look for their own alternative sources—as if they can pretend that there are no NPOV issues. Case in point, one editor repeatedly removed the NPOV banner from the article despite an AfD, DRN, discussion on the talk page and at the WikiProject that were all attempting to resolve the NPOV issue and all because they didn't like the neutrality of the article being questioned seeing as how they wrote the article. We're all supposed to be working towards the same thing in improving the articles, but it doesn't help when one person takes the time to spell out the issues and another responds with the equivalent of "tl;dr". 1.144.108.183 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 1.144.108.183, you are describing two different things. 1) NPOV due to the Wiki editor's interpretation of the sources and selection of words, phrases, etc., 2) NPOV due to the particular selection (or omission) of reliably sourced views being included. The first we can collectively address, and have started to do so with Coastside's help. The second has not yet been shown to be an actual problem as no alternate views have been brought to the discussion. As you are claiming the selection of views used are biased, or incomplete, then perhaps you can better inform us by supplying reliably sourced alternatives that you are presumably alluding to. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 1.144.108.183, it is obvious you are referring to me as the 'one editor', though I have already made very clear (although you seem intent on ignoring it), I have no sense of ownership of the article and you, as I, are free to make any justified edits or revisions. The above phrase "a lot of heat and very little cooking" is very apt when describing your actions relating to this article thus far. Despite going on numerous rants about your dislike of British media, the only people who have provided non-British sources to begin pushing from another POV with to achieve NPOV are myself and DeFacto. If we're talking about things that 'don't help', then personal attacks on fellow editors certainly fall under that category. Instead of making accusations about my editorial intent and repeating your dislike for one particular POV brought forward by British sources, how about suggesting alternative sources, improving sections where you see NPOV issues and finding contructive ways to improve the article? Let's be productive. Formulaonewiki (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"I have no sense of ownership of the article"

You say that, but your actions suggest otherwise. Why did you repeatedly remove the NPOV banner from the top of the article? I had repeatedly pointed out the NPOV issues, which meant that the neutrality was disputed—and that's all the banner says: "the neutrality of this article is disputed", not "this article fails to maintain a neutral point of view". All you achieved by removing the banner was to present the article as having no issues, which is clearly not the case since subsequent discussion has agreed that there are NPOV issues. Coupled with the way you advertise the article on your user page as one you created, it suggests a claim to ownership. 1.129.105.135 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you quite finished? Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a common trait of this editor. When things don't go his way, resorts to abusing others. Played the ownership card recently at Talk:2019 Supercars Championship#Mustang; S550 or FN. Well I am assuming it is the same editor, same IP range with rotating addresses, why can't people just set up an account? Fecotank (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: My suggestion is to close this particular thread. Instead, wait until you have an idea how to improve the article, and then bring it to the talk page as a new discussion in order to build consensus. Focus on edits, not editors. If you're really brave, even try writing for the other guy. Coastside (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested NPOV text for second paragraph

This is a continuation of 3P input from DRN.

I took a stab at reworking the second paragraph with NPOV in mind. For consideration:

As teammates, Hamilton and Rosberg won 54 of 78 races over four seasons. Hamilton had 32 victories, 55 podium finishes and qualified ahead of Rosberg 42 times.  Rosberg had 22 victories, 50 podium finishes and qualified ahead of Hamilton 36 times (same source as currently written). As of 2018, Hamilton has won five Formula One World Championship titles, and Rosberg has won the title once.

Coastside (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Coastside:, looks good to me, and an excellent example of how to craft a NPOV paragraph. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Coastside: Seems perfectly clear and NPOV to me. Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to facilitate a DRN and not inject myself into editing the article. I suggest be bold and make the change! Coastside (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If the article is meant to focus more narrowly on the period from 2013-2016 when they were teammates (were they teammates outside of this period? - the lead isn't clear on that point), then you might change the paragraph to:

As teammates, Hamilton and Rosberg won 54 of 78 races over four seasons. Hamilton had 32 victories, 55 podium finishes and qualified ahead of Rosberg 42 times.  Rosberg had 22 victories, 50 podium finishes and qualified ahead of Hamilton 36 times (same source as currently written). During this period, Hamilton won the Formula One World Championship title twice, and Rosberg won the title once.

Coastside (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, as there's no disagreement, I've put this new wording in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Post racing

Why no mention of extreme e? RacingPhreak (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)