Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Comments

• This appears to be both a WP:BLP issue and a violation of MOS:NATIONALITY. A driver's nationality is a factual thing we should be handling per WP:BLP. If a driver is a dual national, calling them a national of the flag they compete under in the lede and burying their second nationality is an odd choice that misinforms readers. Lando Norris isn't British, he's British-Belgian. Romain Grosjean isn't French, he's French-Swiss. Are we supposed to update the second nationality when a driver leaves F1? It should not be up to editors to choose a nationality for a driver on a very vague basis.

This appears to have been the subject of some lively debate in the past but the current standard of treating an entire nationality as "trivial" and not a biographical fact that warrants inclusion in the lede invites WP:OR on a BLP, and I am unfamiliar with another place on the project that does this. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:FOOTBALL do, for example. MOS:NATIONALITY is clear on relevant—or non-trivial—dual nationality. You wouldn't describe Boris Johnson as "American", even though he technically is, nor Lando Norris as "Belgian", and this is reflected in reliable sources. It would only be updated if they later represented that nationality. MB2437 19:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Boris Johnson isn't, though:

Johnson was a US citizen by virtue of his birth in the US, though he would later renounce his American citizenship.

Which is likely the main reason why we don't say he is a British and American politician. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No, the reason is that he isn’t an American politician and has no notability as an American citizenship. Therefore, following the RS, his American citizenship would have been noted as a factoid in the article body but not influence the descriptor in the lead. MapReader (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not that he has no notability as an American citizen, it's that he's not an American citizen. Same reason Mario Andretti isn't listed as an Italian-national driver; he is no longer an Italian citizen. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Project recommendations do not override MOS:NATIONALITY and WP:BLP. I would recommend the project scale back this section and apply it only to recommendations on the infobox. This section, Secondary nationalities should be omitted from the opening sentence and only mentioned in a personal life section if trivial—e.g. driver was not born/raised in the country or previously competed under the flag—per this discussion should be omitted altogether. The project can't impose their local consensus on biography articles. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  The recommendation was from a discussion centred around MOS:NATIONALITY. It does not override the MOS; the purpose of including it clearly in our conventions was to prevent the incessant edit wars over driver nationality, which it mostly has. MB2437 18:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• @~2026-34199-65: Why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without, so far as I can tell, exhausting the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? Where, for instance, is the prior discussion that has reached deadlock and made this RfC necessary? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  The archives on this wikiproject and the talk pages of the drivers are full of this discussion passionately repeated going back quite a long time, and the RfC came about from a slight impasse at Lando Norris of the conflict in the local guideline and broader project guidelines. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Discussions from years ago does not count as exhausting the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE, because new arguments can be made and consensus can change, even within the wikiproject. So answer Redrose64's question directly: nowhere is there prior discussion (which is suffiecently recent for this purpose) that has reached deadlock and made this rfc necessary. SSSB (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is advice, not a mandatory checklist. If you don't agree with the circumstances here I'm not really sure what demanding I answer my thought process here is going to help with, or what you would like me to do about it. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would like you to follow the advice at WP:RFCBEFORE in future, rather than escalate to an RfC immediatly. SSSB (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have anything to add? You were active in previous discussions, I'm sure you'd bring a valuable perspective here but handwringing over some general recommendations isn't helping the actual topic.~2026-34199-65 (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• With that out of the way, this sort of thing is not unique to F1, or even motor racing in general. There are many players of other sports - football, Rugby, cricket and so on - who have dual nationality. People born in England to Irish parents might have two passports, and may choose which of the two countries to play for. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The question isn't about what flag athletes compete under, but rather how these articles present the nationality of the athletes. Right now, the article for Lando Norris says

Lando Norris is a British racing driver who competes in Formula One for McLaren under a British flag.

and further down the article

Norris holds both British and Belgian citizenship

Other than this local norm in Formula 1 articles, we'd normally say

Lando Norris is a British and Belgian racing driver who competes in Formula One for McLaren under a British flag.

And this local consensus appears to try to override MOS:NATIONALITY ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It does not "override MOS:NATIONALITY". Consensus to not include "and Belgian" has been reaffirmed several times. It is WP:UNDUE and trivial. MB2437 15:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• To my understanding, nationality in this case does not refer to one's legal nationality, but instead to sporting nationality. In sports, especially motorsports, the nationality that one represents is an important part and something that people pay attention to. To mitigate the problem of complex or multiple nationalities in F1, it says "competing under the [country that they represent] flag. Many drivers, including Alex Albon, Isack Hadjar, and Max Verstappen mention both nationalities in the lead. I am unsure why Norris' article does not. While I agree that F1NATIONALITY is poorly phrased in that regard, it does make sense for some instances. Franco Colapinto, for example, is known for being Argentinian, but also holds Italian citizenship. Since his sporting nationality is Argentinian and it's what he's known for, is it worth mentioning in the first sentence? That's debateable. However, it is not in violation of MOS:NATIONALITY under my interpretation, which states "In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident". Further, since infoboxes have been brought up, I'll once again raise the point about sporting nationality. See WP:INFONAT, the relevant guideline here. Again, under my interpretation, the use of a nationality parameter here is not completely prohibited, and it is very useful to the reader to quickly know what nationality a driver competes under, as is the point of an infobox. If there is an issue with having sporting nationality in infoboxes, that seems like a larger issue outside the scope of WPF1, as it is used consistently through various sporting articles. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• To my understanding, nationality in this case does not refer to one's legal nationality, but instead to sporting nationality.

  This is actually about ones legal nationality. Sporting nationality is pretty clear here. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Striking myself. Also noting for transparency that I reordered my comment and your reply as I did not intend to reply to the above commenter. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Franco Colapinto, for example, is known for being Argentinian, but also holds Italian citizenship.

There's nowhere else on Wikipedia we determine what citizenship the subject of the article has for them. People aren't "known for being" a nationality, they are or they aren't one. This is pretty uniform across the project, except here. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Publicly pinging @Mb2437 as he has been responsible for rewriting driver leads recently, which is pretty much the scope of this RfC. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe they also wrote WP:F1NATIONALITY, so I should have pinged them myself. Thanks. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Because they are notable for their second nationalities. Verstappen lived in Belgium all his early life, competing in Belgian championships with a Belgian mother; effectively a Belgian competing as Dutch. Hadjar is notable as the only Arab driver in F1 history. Albon is effectively a Brit competing as Thai and has publicly conceded that he competes as Thai for financial reasons. Norris has a parent from Belgium and is "Belgian" by technicality. That's why. It is WP:UNDUE and against MOS:NATIONALITY, which specifies cases of relevant dual nationality. Where controversy arises, this has been discussed at relevant talk pages. Norris's nationality has been ratified by several discussions (including the one at WP:F1NATIONALITY), Verstappen's has, and Hadjar's has.

No clue why this was brought to an RfC. MB2437 18:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I still believe the best approach is the one taken by WP:FOOTBALL, who omit nationality where controversial and simply say "is a professional footballer who plays as a blahblah for Blahblah and the Blahblah national team"—in our case, it would be "is a racing driver who competes under the Blahblah flag in Formula One for Blahblah". But, consensus was against me in the very long discussion we had about this already. Not that this would apply to Norris; it is not controversial to blankly described someone who was born in, raised in, and competes for a country as being of that nationality, and reliable sources universally follow this. MB2437 19:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That these drivers are dual citizens is uncontroversial. I kicked up this hornets nest by fixing up the nationality Indycar drivers. And suddenly, when I come to F1 drivers, the standard is different despite being guided by the same manual of style and policies around biographies of living people. It isn't reasonable to expect editors to be aware where they have to situationally misrepresent biographical information on a given topic for reasons which I truly haven't seen articulated clearly. Once Gorsjean left F1 for Indycar should his Wikipedia article be updated to call him French and Swiss? Why does the motorsports series he races in dictate his personal, legal nationality? ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't the first time the trivial wording has come up. I have boldly replaced trivial with not relevant to their career or notability and cited MOS:NATIONALITY, which states that multiple nationalities should only be listed in cases of relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration. MB2437 19:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why does this need a unique standard across the project compared to any other biography? Endless discussions can be avoided by simply following MOS:NATIONALITY and not asking editors to determine if citizenship is "relevant", which seems like it would invite more argument. Lando Norris is not a British racing driver, he is, plainly, a British-Belgian racing driver. Dual citizens are not situationally citizens of single countries. This policy means we would have to change the citizenship of drivers like Roman Grosjean when they leave F1 to bring it in line with the rest of Wikipedia. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  (wouldn't it be British and Belgian?) GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I do have a bit of a bad habit of forgetting that Wikipedia does and instead of hyphenate.

  @Mb2437: I've been going through the archives of this talk page, particularly around where you created WP:F1NATIONALITY. I'm struggling to find the consensus for the policy you wrote but there's a heck of a lot of discussion so I presume it's easy to have missed one. I am finding a lot of statements from general editors repeatedly expressing confusion that this is being done in a way that is unique on Wikipedia. I think it'd help editors here if we could see clearly what lead to WP:F1NATIONALITY. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is linked on the guideline itself. MB2437 20:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  For anyone else reading, it's here This statement:

  For drivers with multiple citizenship, the F1 infobox contains the nationality under which they compete(d) in F1, while the text details the full situation of their nationalities. Specific examples include:

  Does not appear to reflect any kind of consensus in the linked discussion? In fact that looks like a highly contentious discussion that didn't result in a consensus, let alone one that rises to a rigidly enforced guideline. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It reached consensus towards the end. The main opposition (me and LesRoutine) both conceded our positions. You seem confused: this is not a rigidly enforced guideline, just very clear examples of when it is WP:UNDUE and against MOS:NATIONALITY to state a secondary nationality alongside what they are mainly known for. Someone's view of that can always be challenged on the relevant article's talk page. MB2437 21:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I do not really see the consensus for that guideline there that you do. Can you be more specific with MOS:NATIONALITY? Because two editors here now think the status quo directly is violating it. The only line in there about that is:

  In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity.

  These are all public, uncontroversial dual citizenships. Also, it gets into WP:BLP; Lando is not a British racing driver, he's a British and Belgian racing driver. "British" ≠ "British and Belgian". He doesn't stop being Belgian when he gets in the car, even if he races under a British license. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Beyond that I'll try to disengage here a bit unless there are some direct questions you have to give other editors a chance to read without it getting too bogged down in debate. But when you're reverting (on Arvid Lindblad) "Swedish citizen" with the statement "He never lived in Sweden" you can possibly see how this creates an issue, your revert reason is a non-sequitur. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  He is also someone who clearly identifies as "British", but I digress. MB2437 21:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Public, I believe, is referring to those in public office. The examples given clarify it. One is a political matter, the other is someone whose dual nationality is directly relevant to their career (both of whom were raised in said country), neither of which apply to someone like Norris, who was born in, raised in, and competes for Britain. Regardless, Norris's nationality in the opening sentence has been discussed several times on that article's talk page; "Belgian" is blatantly UNDUE alongside "British", textbook example of those listed on the guidance (which followed our project-wide consensus, of which he was a specified example) and follows recognition in reliable sources. "" for Lindblad, Colapinto, Stroll, Ricciardo, ... Grosjean is an example of someone who previously competed for their second nationality and is thus notable for it. MB2437 21:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Public, I believe, is referring to those in public office. The examples given clarify it.

  I don't think this is right, the two examples are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Peter Lorre. In the examples at the MOS, there are two options presented: all citizenships, or none (due to local consensus in the case of Musk). Just worth considering. (okay, for real this time, taking a break) ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Did you actually read the examples? Schwarzenegger is listed as an example of a politician. Also, the MOS does include examples of someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country and only their adopted country being listed. So I have no idea, after reading that guidance, why on earth we would include a country they didn't even emigrate from and have never lived in nor represented.

  There is also MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE which clearly states to reflect the balance of reliable sources. Both Lindblad and Norris's article explain in the second paragraph that they have parents of different nationalities. That is their only relation to the country and it is appropriately given; not on equal footing to their actual nationality. MB2437 15:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Both Lindblad and Norris's article explain in the second paragraph that they have parents of different nationalities.

  This is not how citizenship works, and you have made edits equating parental origin with citizenship. Citizenship, while automatically conveyed in many cases, can be failed to be acquired through failure to register a birth abroad, or any other number of reasons. We do not expect readers to piece together conjecture on the basis of nationality law.

  That's why I've raised this edit multiple times here; your approach to this is questionable, and I worry that spills over since you're the person who decided consensus (which... didn't seem cut and dry) and wrote the local guideline.

We're both veering into WP:BLUDGEON territory if we keep at it. Can we please just let other editors weigh in without that being seen as an invitation to debate? This is already a massive RfC mostly because of the two of us.~2026-34199-65 (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Replying to a 3-week-old comment of mine and throwing aspersions around to provoke me is an interesting way to make that plea. Nevertheless, I agree. Going to collapse the thread under #Break so this is more navigable. MB2437 19:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to strike any aspersions if you let me know exactly what you were concerned about.

I also replied here because of this comment in the poll section, to not turn the poll section into a second discussion. I should have made that clearer. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to comment on this because I'm not invested in it, but out of curiosity I read MOS:NATIONALITY and there's nothing in there that would suggest a subject's nationalities should be exhaustively listed. And I wouldn't have expected it to, because many notable individuals acquire nationalities for tax or residency purposes without ever cultivating a strong relationship with that state. There are undoubtedly many individuals with articles who have kept that information private, and there has been no reason to suspect their articles are incomplete. In fact I can think of one particular example where it was decided a second nationality should not be included at all if it was not publicly notable. Many athletes would have second or third nationalities of marginal significance, Norris being a good example. Unless someone can point to what in MOS:NATIONALITY suggests the listing should be exhaustive, I will quit firmly reject this proposal. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's not an "Exhaustive list" but "these nationalities are covered in reliable, pertinent press." Or, in the case of Norris being Belgian, repeatedly referenced by the driver themselves. If subject-relevant WP:RSs mention nationality, I don't know how we can determine it's not notable for WP purposes without a WP:OR issue. I do mean "I don't know", though. But editors have been blanking the citizenship information out of the body of articles as well citing this, so this isn't just a case of an exhaustive list of trivia in the lede. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

For example, from Norris himself:

Norris explained that he regarded the Belgian race as his second ‘home’ event. “I’m 50 percent Belgian,” he said. “And 50 percent from the UK. We used to come here for Christmas and Easter and everyone on my mum’s side lives out here. “The only reason I would say Silverstone or the GB race is more of a home race is just because that’s where I’ve grown up.”

I don't know how we could call this trivial and worth burying in the article when the driver himself is pretty clear on it. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind, it is guidance that can be debated in contentious cases. In the case of Norris, it has been debated (both very recently and in the original discussion), despite it being a very obvious example of where a second citizenship is trivial, and consensus was to maintain "British" in the lead sentence, with his mother's nationality prominently stated in the second paragraph; WP:UNDUE, MOS:NATIONALITY, yada-yada-yada. His statement that he spent Christmases in Belgium—in promotion for an upcoming Belgian Grand Prix—does not hold much weight. An RS mentioning that someone holds dual citizenship does not inherently make it a common descriptor relevant for the opening sentence of a biography. If they are not commonly associated with said nationality, it does not belong in the first sentence, simply. Another note, we are not debating ethnicity, which pertains to his '50/50' remark and should not be used unless relevant to the subject's notability... and he is no Emmett Till. He has never lived there, never represented them, and has no distinct notability related to the country; the MOS is abundantly clear and the convention merely reflects that. MB2437 10:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely do not see how you can arrive at His statement that he spent Christmases in Belgium—in promotion for an upcoming Belgian Grand Prix—does not hold much weight without WP:OR. This is a WP:BLP, accurate reflection of reliable sources should not be passed through a lens of editorial interpretation to determine if something is trivial or not, especially when it comes to dismissing the direct statements of the driver about their nationality/background.

If Norris says "I am Belgian" we cannot interpret that as exclusively about his ethnicity when a: that isn't clear from the source and b: he has Belgian citizenship. The local consensus here appears to be to creatively re-interpret source statements to arrive at the conclusion that we can't use "Belgian", so I really don't know how we can rely on it to assume "Oh, he's talking about ethnicity here" without WP:OR. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I suggest we take a step back and let others weigh in? I think our perspectives are pretty clear here and it's quickly becoming a lot to read. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but I will note that WP:OR famously does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. MB2437 10:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Break

• Before putting this to a poll (it seems the three options would be retain, reword, or remove), I would like to take suggestions for what rewording the clause would entail. As the editor who added it—in an attempt to quell the continual edit wars and debates at individual talk pages over perception of driver nationality, when we already have recent project-wide consensus for what MOS:NATIONALITY means in the context of a multi-national racing driver's biography—I concede that the wording isn't perfect, particularly if not relevant to their career or notability (previously if trivial, the wording floated in the original discussion). Unsure how to word it better, or whether to remove that part altogether and just go into the examples.

The MOS is clear that someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country should be identified as such; this inherently extends to people who never emigrated and always identified with their home country (Norris, Lindblad, Ricciardo, Colapinto, Stroll, ...). I had suggested the "is a racing driver who competes under the Blahblah flag" (no nationality tag) option listed in the MOS in said conversation for drivers such as Albon and Verstappen, which is used in WP:FOOTBALL and our contentious cases such as Eddie Irvine and Jochen Rindt, but it was turned down.

If the clause is to be kept, I feel that it would be best to add a footnote explaining what the MOS says on the matter. Something of the form:

MOS:NATIONALITY states that someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country should be identified as such, which extends to those who never lived in or identified with a country i.e. a racing driver who was not raised in, has not represented, or is not notable for their citizenship of a country.

There is also the matter of the examples listed: driver was not born/raised in the country or previously competed under the flag. I feel these examples best reflect our consensus. Perhaps born could be removed given the MOS passage above (emigrated as a child; you wouldn't describe Boris Johnson as "American") and maybe add or is otherwise notable for said nationality, given the consensus at Isack Hadjar.

Feel free to keep commenting above, this is only for poll suggestions. MB2437 19:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, my suggestion for a reword:

Additional nationalities should be omitted from the opening sentence of a driver's biography if it is not relevant to their career or they are not notable as a citizen of the country—i.e. the driver has never held permanent residency in the country, has not competed under the flag in any professional series, and is not otherwise notable for it—per this discussion and MOS:NATIONALITY.^{[note 1]}

I feel as though the discussions above—as well as the various discussions at Norris, Lindblad, Ricciardo, Hadjar, Verstappen, ...—make it abundantly clear why we need the convention, and also why it needs rewording. Changed secondary nationalities to additional nationalities; changed or notability to or they are not notable as a citizen of the country per the MOS; changed e.g. to i.e. and the examples from was not born/raised in the country or previously competed under the flag to has never held permanent residency in the country, has not competed under the flag in any professional series, and is not otherwise notable for it for clarity; and added a footnote on what the MOS says and how it applies in the context of a racing driver's biography. MB2437 16:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Per below, has never held permanent residency in the country would be more accurate as has never lived in the country for an extended period. Conflated the terminology, my bad. MB2437 00:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Poll

With regards to WP:F1NATIONALITY and its content, it seems we have three main options: retain, reword (see above), or remove. Please leave your votes and comments below. :) MB2437 17:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Reword. Having routinely dealt with nationality disputes on our BLPs for the past few years, it is abundantly clear that at least some clause on the matter in our conventions is a necessity to maintain stability. We came to a consensus in 2024, even after I filibustered the life out of it (my bad...), that drivers who have never represented or lived in a country should not have it stated in the opening sentence, per the MOS. Being able to cite our project-wide consensus on the matter, and it being clear and well-summarised, is invaluable in disputes. I had initially worded the convention to follow the consensus of the original discussion, but it has been picked apart in multiple discussions now—particularly trivial, secondary, and what the MOS actually says—here and elsewhere. It needs to stay, but it needs further work to be an effective policy. MB2437 17:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. On the one hand, the proposed reword is an improvement. On the other hand, “otherwise notable for it” is loose enough that it will be litigated again on an article-by-article basis (often driven by people who don’t believe standardizing an encyclopedia is that important / people who want to claim Max Verstappen / people whose interpretation of “notable” includes “Boris Johnson is American”), so this new reword will still likely be accompanied by specific illustrations. I will save any specific comments for specific cases (Eddie Irvine, Mario Andretti, Nico Rosberg, etc.). Namelessposter (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Reword my interpretation of MOS:NATIONALITY in relation to Formula One is that the lead should only mention that nationality the driver has competed under (the only exception to this is if they are somehow notable under a different nationality outside of F1). Clearly the original working of the policy was not suffeicently clear on the matter, but this is a great oppurtunity to resolve that. SSSB (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Reword Remove. This is going to be litigated again and again as long as we leave it up to editors what counts as a reliable source their nationality separately from WP:RS. I think it should be brought in line with the rest of motorsports articles on Wikipedia rather than having a situation where we treat some information as "trivial" (regardless of source, including driver statements) as long as they're under the umbrella of the Formula One Wikiproject. It gets really sticky when we're overriding repeated statements of the drivers themselves (such as Norris) by declaring them about ethnicity rather than nationality absent that implication in the sources. "Unless otherwise notable for it" is too vague for biographical information in a WP:BLP, to me. The line in the rewording here ("has never held permanent residency in the country") will add to confusion because citizens by definition hold permanent residency, though they don't utilize it.
  The previous discussion at the Motorsports wikiproject expressed the same concerns about determining notability as raised here: "Who gets to determine what is a "noteworthy" nationality?" ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Changing to remove per discussions below. What's being proposed is far too open to interpretation for a BLP and while I agree there are situations that count as controversial, like Northern Ireland/British, I don't see any logic in, say, not calling Norris Belgian when he himself does.~2026-34199-65 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The MOS, as with our convention, dictates that Norris would not be described as Belgian. MB2437 14:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think MOS:CONTEXTBIO dictates that "Belgian" has to be omitted here. This is not simply Belgian ancestry: reliable sources state that Norris holds British and Belgian citizenship, and GQ describes him as a "British and Belgian national". MOS says that, in cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, using "and" reduces ambiguity. So, where both citizenships are included, "British and Belgian racing driver who competes under the British flag" seems a reasonable wording. It also makes the distinction between citizenship and sporting representation clear, as in Max Verstappen's lead. ΘΘεοχάρης (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

He is someone who continued to reside in their country of origin or someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country and thus should be stated as such. If you are concerned about DUE, one Google search of Lando Norris "Belgian driver" or LN "Belgian-British driver" vs. LN "British driver" verifies exactly how he is routinely described by RS—keep in mind, the proposed rewording accounts for this with "otherwise notable for it". A sportsperson who has always lived in and represented a country is universally stated as such across this encyclopaedia, not just in this project. Some comparable examples: Declan Rice (football; Irish through parents), Alex de Minaur (tennis; Spanish through mother), Maro Itoje (rugby; Nigerian through parents), Ben Stokes (cricket; New Zealander through parents), and Ben Simmons (basketball; American through father). Verstappen, someone who lived in Belgium their entire life until they joined F1, is not comparable. MB2437 18:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand the reasoning behind trying to remove or downplay Norris’s mother’s nationality in this case, especially based on local guidelines. It does not seem to make much sense to me when the second paragraph itself says: “Born in Bristol and raised near Glastonbury to an English father and Belgian mother.” It feels as though this information is being deliberately omitted for reasons that are unclear to me. The country under whose flag he competes in Formula 1 is a different matter from the fact that he holds, or is entitled to, two nationalities. Being more widely known as British in the context of F1 obviously does not contradict the fact that he is half British and half Belgian. An encyclopedia exists precisely to present accurate information, not only the most dominant or commonly repeated version of it, regardless of the reasons that version may have become prevalent. ΘΘεοχάρης (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

On the last point, that is exactly what we do. MB2437 12:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

We are not discussing viewpoints here, we’re discussing a statement of fact. Driver nationalities are not a matter of opinion. Tvx1 22:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

We didn't make that rule, the wider community did in the MOS. People are not described by exact legal status, rather what they are known for and can reasonably be identified as. All of the above examples prove that. I don't understand where you are seeing "exhaustively list all citizenships in the opening sentence" here. This RfC is about how the F1-specific guidance aligns with the MOS and whether it needs to exist at all, not our personal opinion on whether all citizenships should be exhaustively listed or not. MB2437 22:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, MOS is not a rulebook. It doesn’t force us to do anything. They are guidelines, which give us advice on how to write our articles. And despite the RFC’s purpose, you keep repeating your personal opinion on whether a specific example’s dual nationalities should be mentioned or not. Tvx1 09:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I think your perspective is well and truly understood here, as is mine. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

No he is not. His Belgian nationality is more than notable enough to be included in the lead sentence. Moreover, MOS doesn’t dictate us anything. It’s a guideline, not a law. Tvx1 11:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Reword. This modification greatly improves the clarity of the convention and is overall clearer and establishes consistency. I would suggest moving the line about disputed nationalities ("Controversial or unclear cases should be removed entirely, such as Jochen Rindt and Eddie Irvine") out of the note and into the main convention paragraph to make it more prominent. Other than that, I think that this change would be beneficial and will hopefully reduce these disputes in the future. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  @GalacticVelocity08 Jochen Rindt's german nationality is discussed in the article (not lede, which seems reasonable) and appears to be neither controversial nor unclear. Eddie Irvine likewise doesn't appear to have a controversial or unclear citizenship, though I'm not as knowledgeable on F1 history and may be missing some older discussions here. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is not whether the citizenship itself is controversial, but rather whether labelling someone as that nationality is. Rindt publicly disavowed his German citizenship, thus making it plainly controversial to label him as "a German" (see § Early life and family). See Talk:Eddie Irvine for why "British", a controversial label in Northern Ireland, has been removed from his article. Unclear isn't really a concern for F1 BLPs, as all modern drivers compete under the nationality of their passport—we know they are citizens of that country, but it still may not align with their national identity, vis-à-vis Irvine—but I included it as a direct quote from the MOS anyway as it could apply historically. MB2437 00:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Remove. Drivers should be treated under the same general Wikipedia policies as every other biography, without a local guideline deciding which legal nationalities are “important enough” to mention. ΘΘεοχάρης (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying they shouldn’t be treated as such. The local guideline is simply a contextual clarification of the MOS, and such guidelines are present in other sport WPs. MB2437 21:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Reword – As above. The nationality of the subject is a notable part of who they are, and our goal is not and never has been – in this project or anywhere on Wikipedia – to describe a subject's legal status in the lead. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Remove. Agree that it should be removed. There's one MOS on this and having this for a project is pointless. If the project doesn't recognize the problem this might have to be brought up with the wider community. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate on what such "problem" is? The convention is completely compliant with the MOS, it just clarifies and sets a precedence for it's application in this specific area of articles. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  The specific area at issue is biographies, which are already covered by MOS:NATIONALITY. A WikiProject does not take precedence over the Manual of Style when it comes to how nationality is presented in the lead. Nemov (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  • You seem to be reading a different version of MOS:NATIONALITY that the rest of us don't have a copy of. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)