This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Max Verstappen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Suggested edit: “In 2008, racing in a CRG kart entered by his father, Verstappen won the Belgian Cadet Championship,[13] the Rotax Max Challenge Belgium,[14] and the Benelux Karting Series in the Mini Max class.[15]”
@Mb2437: you twice reverted my additions to summarize the the controversial result in the WP:LEAD.
Here you stated "controversy unrelated to him and his overtake" in this diff.
Here you again reverted stating MOS:CONTROVERSIAL in this diff. In this edit you reverted out the word controversial and re-added the piped in text.
The controversy surrounding the result is well documented at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Are you opposed to the inclusion of this text? It appears you are. Text seems non-controversial to me.
It is WP:UNDUE in a single-line summary—the "controversial" label implies illegitimacy and taints the neutrality; could instead add "following a late safety car". The controversy itself is unrelated to Verstappen. MB243701:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has to be brief for MOS:LEAD and the safety car issue is more trivia. The fact that the race result was controversial is DUE for inclusion in the lead. To me this looks like whitewashing for and WP:PUFF. Are you still opposed to it? Have anything else to add WP:RFCBEFORE? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not cast aspersions about my intentions to whitewash. This has been the stable version of the lead for a long time. I explained very clearly why it is unsuitable and—in my opinion—fails WP:NPOV to blindly apply a "controversial" label in a single-line summary of an entire season. The safety car issue is not trivia; the section at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is literally titled Safety car controversy. The result itself was non-controversial, as confirmed unanimously by both the stewards and the International Court of Appeal—both protests lodged by the opposing party (Mercedes). To add further, if it were controversial and subsequently nullified, Verstappen would still be champion i.e. he was not champion by way of a debatable result.
The controversy was over the race director's belated decision in removing lapped cars from the equation. Any such half-baked label would require a lengthy footnote. The status quo retains this explanation in a wikilink to 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, where the entire race is explained openly and at length with—if anything—too much information on the controversy. MB243713:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you were whitewashing. The very fact that it went to two different protests (that you mention/admit) are further evidence of the controversial nature of the race (and hence result). Would you be ok with using the word "disputed" instead of "controversial"? You admit that Mercedes disputed the result. I would also like to remove the piped in text, that you also reverted my removal of. What was the reason for that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Elegant variation. 2. Clarifies to unaware readers it was the final race of the season—it was a remarkable circumstance that the title-winning overtake was on the last lap of the season. Similar wording used at Lewis Hamilton for 2008. MB243712:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to the 3rd opinion request. I find multiple reliable sources that explicitly refer to the affair as a "controversy" or "controversial" [1], [2][3][4], etc and I'm sure there are more. "Disputed" and "controversia" contain the same valence here, so I'm not sure if switching between one or the other is useful - and I agree in a broader sense that the adjective would give a particular impression of the race that may or may not be warranted. I do not have the relevant knowledge about F1 racing (indeed I have no knowledge whatsoever about racing, only Wikipedia policies) to comment on that aspect. MOS:CONTROVERSIAL suggests that we should "give readers information about relevant controversies" instead of using the descriptor, so I suggest a way to put a short sentence in the lead describing that, given that there is an abundance of reliable sources that mention it. Perhaps something like "Verstappen won his maiden title in 2021 after overtaking Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of the disputed 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, becoming the first World Drivers' Champion from the Netherlands. This race was characterized by some as controversial due to <>, but <>". I don't feel comfortable accurately describing why it was controversial or how to describe the resolution, but maybe the other editors can help on that front. As a sidenote, I do note a concerning lack of discussion of this controversy in the section Max Verstappen#2021: World Champion amid title battle vs. Hamilton as I was reading it. Given that it was widely discussed in the media and known as the most controversial title in F1 history (per the WP:RS I found), it is most certainly WP:DUE for further discussion in this article. I have no opinion on how that should take place, but two sentences is most definitely not enough per WP:DUE given its prominence in media coverage. I would suggest editors take steps to address that as well. Katzrockso (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on a full rewrite of the section to trim it from its greatly overdetailed state, with more weight on the final race. Two sentences on one championship in the lead puts undue weight on the controversy when he has three other titles to discuss, especially when the controversy is not related to him. A short clause to the existing sentence would be far more appropriate: "Verstappen won his maiden title in 2021 after overtaking Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of the last race of the season, following a disputed safety car period, becoming the first World Drivers' Champion from the Netherlands." Explained above why the piped text—"last race of the season"—is more appropriate for a general audience. MB243712:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that two sentences provides undue weight, it is a highly significant race that garnered attention over a sustained period of time. The same is not true for most other races. Barring crashes, it is the only race mentioned at length in e.g. this New York Times profile of him [5], or on his own Formula1 profile [6].
I like your version of the sentence, it's definitely an improvement over the current version, but I think a brief mention of the legal controversy and resolution (that the he kept the title) are warranted, though I'm not sure how to accurately summarize that in a brief enough way. Reasoning: coverage of the initial results focuses on Verstappen (i.e. coverage brings up supposed 'doubt' surrounding the win - and majority of coverage on the race I found from that period of time mention it in the title announcing his win) + later coverage also covers him in specific context ([7][8][9][10]). That the information/content got sustained coverage over a long period of time, including wrt him specifically, speaks to the fact that's it warrants more coverage under WP:DUE. Maybe I'm wrong about other years, but it seems to be much more sustained coverage of this event or race than any other, to the point it is known as "legendary" or listed on "biggest scandals" [11].
I do think "disputed safety car period" should be elaborated - as a casual reader (formerly completely unacquainted with racing and I'm sure I will forget anything I read here) it is not clear what that means. Perhaps "following a procedural dispute involving safety cars" would avoid any connotations but also accurately reflect the fact that it was a procedural dispute. Katzrockso (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or "following a dispute over the safety car withdrawal/procedure". Other season summaries with notable events have been trimmed for brevity e.g. 2023, where he broke just about every single-season record there is. We are talking about the weight being due relative to the rest of his long and highly successful career, which it is not unless we plan on expanding the lead to 900+ words. A wikilink to the dispute section piped in "a dispute" could cover this for interested readers; the wider coverage was not centred on Verstappen but the FIA and the role of the race director. There was no expectation in RS that Verstappen's title was in jeopardy. Wider analysis belongs firmly in the body, as has always been the case for historical drivers with similar circumstances (Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, etc.). It feels a case of WP:RECENTISM that simply won't stand the test of time against the rest of his career. It is still only one of three individual Grands Prix discussed in the lead, alongside the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix and the 2024 São Paulo Grand Prix. MB243713:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We dont need to WP:OSE here. The controversy/dispute generated significant coverage, a championship result was impacted, and the race director got fired for it. One word is enough, readers can always go to the relevant article to read more. Using piped in text and a word salad to obfuscate is not useful nor encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; just saying I'm not wholly opposed to a short embedded clause elaborating on the dispute if we are going to mention it. In my eyes, "last lap of the last race of the season" is far more informative to the general reader—what I would be thinking is "what is the significance of Abu Dhabi?" Perhaps "final lap" would be an easier read without the repetition of "last". MB243700:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing an encyclopedic summary of the person's biography, not a hagiography - a mention of a dispute does not discount other successes in his career. That other summary biographies of his career (linked above) mention the race in particular means it warrants mention in the lead, the question is about how best to describe it - and multiple policies influence this consideration.
I disagree that it is unnecessary. You objected to the inclusion of the world "controversial" on the grounds that MOS:CONTROVERSIAL advises against using words like "controversial". But MOS:CONTROVERSIAL suggests "giv[ing] readers information about relevant controversies", which your clause flattens the controversy without providing sufficient informatory content. As someone unfamiliar with this topic altogether, I would be WP:ASTONISHed to read "disputed safety car withdrawal" only to find out that the decision was in fact a protracted legal dispute with coverage over several years.
Adds an embedded clause mentioning the dispute, without overdetailing and skewing the weight of the lead towards one season. Further detail is unnecessary; the proposed amendment acknowledges both the dispute and subsequent rejection, which is inherent in his still winning the title. MB243700:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At wikipedia we say things simply. Who cares if the overtake was on the last lap or the second to last lap, what needs to be covered in the lead is the dispute relating to the result. Your suggestion (largely the same as what is in the article now) doesnt cover that. You have one involved editor and now and uninvolved editor telling you this. I tried to get this done using a third opinion without the need for a full RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it largely the same? It adds a clause explaining clearly and concisely what happened. You are suggesting that three-quarters of the weight on his first championship be on a dispute that had nothing to do with his actions. It being on the last lap absolutely is relevant and noteworthy—it is one of, if not the, most memorable moment in the sport's history. MB243701:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the version above but not wholly opposed; I would trim "2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" to simply "Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" as the 2021 context has already been established. Apologies for being a bit sharp with some responses, just a lot of angles to consider with the neutrality. MB243702:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They do address a valid concern that I understand upon reflection; a clause such as the one I proposed above would be clearer without overdetailing. The safety car withdrawal was the only real point of contention. I explained above that Mercedes's appeal of the race itself was dropped and there was no legal battle. MB243722:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was not a matter of a simple safety care withdrawal, the sources (nor common sense) support that. I think we are going to have to run an RFC on this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean the sources and common sense do not support that? The dispute was entirely about the safety car withdrawal and the wording of the regulations surrounding it: the race director allowed the lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to unlap themselves (standard procedure) but did not allow others to unlap themselves and another lap under safety car conditions for them to catch the pack, paving the way for a final lap of racing between the title contenders. That was it. Mercedes disputed the results under the basis that the withdrawal procedure was incorrectly followed, which Red Bull successfully countered, in a hearing on the day itself. The FIA—in their own court, sourced above—conceded that the procedure was poorly written, amended the withdrawal procedure, and sacked the race director for not applying the intention of the procedure.
There is no bigger picture to the dispute, it was simply over the safety car withdrawal. Here are the race highlights, for interest; the safety car and radio disputes over its withdrawal are from 3:29 onwards. There is also the official document on the Mercedes–Red Bull quarrels over the withdrawal here. MB243722:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The race director wasn’t sacked. He was transferred to another job. He then tendered his resignation much later for other reasons. Tvx1 17:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me. Was not aware of this discussion. I reverted the lead change as I thought it was misleading. The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix as such was and is not disputed. What was disputed was how the safety car situation was handled and the impact it had on the outcome of the race and therefore on the driver's championship. Have this article on my watchlist but have not followed the editing history. Must say I'm a bit baffled as to why this discussion is needed at all. Surely after four years we must have come to a consensus on how to describe matters related to the 2021 championship. What changed? Had a brief glance at the discussion and it does seem to me that Jtbobwaysf is attempting some POV pushing here.--Wolbo (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This controversy (some might call it a dispute as well) relates to the race director's (Michael Masi) failure to follow procedure in a safety car restart (which resulted in his termination). The procedure issue might have affected the outcome of the championship (we will never know), and was subject to multiple legal reviews and challenges. We dont specuate if it affected the championship, but we can give DUE weight to the controversy surrounding the race and the tainted result. The dispute/controversy is covered at 2021_Abu_Dhabi_Grand_Prix#Safety_car_dispute. Some editors above have sought to minimize the weight of this event by calling it a mere 'safety car procedural issue', which it might be at first glance, but at deeper level necessary to summarize it with due weight, we should add something to memorialize the dispute that surrounded the race. We are not here to PUFF up this article, we only cover the history of events. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are very conveniently leaving out my proposal:
Per the discussion above—explained abundantly clearly—the race result was not disputed in a lengthy legal battle as you seem to believe it was, nor was it any more than a safety car procedural issue.[12][13][14] You have refused to explain why it was any more than that, just proclaimed it to be whitewashing. Some editors above have sought to minimize the weight of this event by calling it a mere 'safety car procedural issue' is a laughable claim; I would appreciate if you at least tried to be a little more impartial. It is not minimising the event: it explains exactly what happened without blindly adding a contentious label to the event as a whole.
Your behaviour in these discussions has bordered on POV-pushing, per Wolbo above, and forum shopping. Your proposed options do not reflect the prior conversation at all, only your side of it. Multiple editors had expressed concerns with a one-word label that you have plainly ignored. If we cannot reach an agreement on that here, my vote is with number 3. MB243714:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even mentioning the final race in the lead here? The battle for the championship went on for the entire 2021 season. Verstappen's involvement in the botched safety-car restart was completely tangential and just mentioning it in the lead of the article implies a level of fault and involvement which Verstappen simply didn't have. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overtaking your title rival to win on the final lap of the season is pretty noteworthy; there should also be general mention of the preceding title battle. MB243701:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's noteworthy enough to go in the main body of the text, sure, but I think drawing too much attention to Abu Dhabi 2021 in the lead just fuels the ire of diehard Hamilton fans in a way which becomes WP:UNDUE in a WP:BLP. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's massively overstating it. Senna's death. Bianchi's death. 1990 Japanese Grand Prix. 1994 Australian Grand Prix. 1997 European Grand Prix. All these events signify a championship being defined by a single moment since then and are no less notable. Then there are other equally or more notable events which are not defined by a single moment. It only appears at the most notable because of recentism, an increase in the sports viewership, and an increase in the number of media outlets. SSSB (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 No change: Simply adding the words controversial or disputed lack the necessary nuance given the issue lay with the safety care procedure specifically rather than the race as a whole. I would, however, be more inclined to change it to Mb2437's proposed "Verstappen won his maiden title in 2021 after overtaking Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of the last race of the season, following a disputed safety car withdrawal, to become the first World Drivers' Champion from the Netherlands." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadelynnSienna (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 No Change: I agree that the situation is covered in length within the prose of the article itself and related articles. IMO its not neccesary to then include it in the lead as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QWisps (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 No change: Option 1 is is a blantant violation of both WP:V and WP:DUE. The Grand Prix is not disputed by anyone other than but-hurt arm chair critics. The only sentence where the word "disputed" could be legitimately used would be Mb2437's "Verstappen won his maiden title in 2021 after overtaking Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of the last race of the season, following a disputed safety car withdrawal [...]" (to be clear, I would be opposed to this as well). Adding either "controversial" or "disputed" in any context in the lead would cast doubt over the legitimacy of his championship title and would therefore be a WP:NPOV issue, because the lead cannot explain the issue in suffeicent detail to present it neutrally. SSSB (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deemphasise final race in lead: The current wording focuses too heavily on the (controversial) finale of the 2021 season and fails to give any real description of the season-long battle for the championship lead. It wasn't Verstappen's fault that he had an unfair advantage handed to him and the fact that the lead is mentioning that final lap (which everyone who isn't a diehard Red Bull/Verstappen fan will acknowledge was mishandled) in the lead of Verstappen's article only serves to make Verstappen's involvement in that mishandling look like it's anything more than completely tangential (the sort of conspiracy theory only a diehard Mercedes/Hamilton fan would believe). Details of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix's safety-car restart and final lap can be discussed in the body of the text. I would propose a more WP:DUE and WP:NPOV wording like "Verstappen won his maiden title in 2021 following a season-long battle for the championship lead with Lewis Hamilton". The current wording only adds fuel to the fire of endless bickering between armchair critics. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deemphasise final race in lead I find myself agreeing with HumanBodyPiloter's response above. The championship battle spanned over the whole season, and although it was decided during the final lap, it minimizes the fact that it was an intense season long battle. I would personally be ok with it being mentioned (saying something along the lines of "which was decided during the last race of the season") with DUE weight. In terms of the options given at the RfC, strong oppose to No. 1 as disputed implies it is illegitamite. Neutral on option 2 and 3, I don't think that anyone would disagree that the last race was controversial. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mention both final race and preceding title battle: HumanBodyPiloter5 makes a strong argument on the title battle, which has been unanimously regarded as one of the greatest in F1 history,[15][16][17][18][19] being prominent enough for the lead. There is probably even enough coverage for a Hamilton–Verstappen rivalry article, which has been peddled by fans, media, and the drivers themselves continuously since 2018,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] despite their championship affairs only covering a single season. However, I strongly feel that it being settled on the final lap of the season is of high relevance to its notability—discussed prominently in all sources above and a plethora of others.[27][28][29][30]
Took the primary weighting off the final race, both in word-count and prominence of placement—per those above—and substituted its original placement with that of the championship fight. Indifferent about the adjective before title battle; "close" feels an understatement given how bitterly contested it was; "contentious" is of the same variety which has been opposed, although that weight is balanced on their title battle and not solely applied to one race that went in one's favour i.e. covers the events of the entire season, where both drivers and teams courted strife from the very first Grand Prix. MB243721:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Seems like the link has been fixed already. F1GP template was entered incorrectly prior. QWisps (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
