Talk:2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Mercedes Appeal

Let's keep an eye out on whether or not mercedes actually files that appeal. They have 48 hours to actually do so. Marskore (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Mazepin's race classification (or non-classification)

So trying to stop an edit war here.

As per the sources, F1 has not included Mazepin as participant in the actual race because of his withdrawal prior to the race starting. He was not classified, and F1 has not included him in the race classification. If there's a belief that he should still be included in the table, please discuss here first before we get into an edit war (and please provide a source that he should be included in the race classification table). Singularity42 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You are behaving like the owner here. You are removing sourced information. The driver qualified then did not participate in the race. This needs explaining. F1 results routinely include DNPQ and DNQ WD is not FUCKING different. Also you are an edit warring chud. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:3106:E6B9:D8AF:16D5 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Also this source expressly includes Nikita Mazepins withdrawal. "Note - Mazepin withdrawn prior to the race on the grounds of force majeure following a positive Covid-19 test." You are justing imposing your own version in defiance of what the sources are actually saying. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:3106:E6B9:D8AF:16D5 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Also here is the 1971 German Grand Prix which clearly lists Helmut Marko as Withdrawn, just confirming your ass-hattery by insisting your ownership demands we do not put Mazepin down as withdrawn. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:3106:E6B9:D8AF:16D5 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I DID provide that source, and it's exactly the one that the above poster quoted, [1]. It says, "Note - Mazepin withdrawn prior to the race on the grounds of force majeure following a positive Covid-19 test." Did you notice that my addition did not list Mazepin as "20th", or show him on the grid as "20th", just like the source didn't? I DID include a row in a table because the source included that note, with a status of 'WD' and a grid starting position of '–'. If you don't like that people are including a row that says this, your complaint is with formula1.com that bothered to mention the fact, and not with any editor here. You should be asking them to remove any mention of Mazepin on a page that is quoted as a source for the race classification here in this article, and has been all along.

Also, FWIW, historically, the same site has included 'DNQ' as a "race classification" for drivers (see 1992_French_Grand_Prix, which uses an archived version of the result, [2], rather than the newest, which doesn't even include drivers eliminated on a first lap collision, like Senna [3]). Should Senna be removed from the 1992 result, because the current F1 source doesn't list him? My point is that if your only objection to Mazepin not being included in the table is that the source doesn't say it in a way that satisfies you personally, maybe "reasonablity" should be employed here. If 'DNQ' is good enough to be included in an article's race classification table because an archived version of F1's results did, I don't see why 'Qualified and withdrew' isn't, when a note exists in the currently published starting grid's page on formula1.com calling this out, and "Withdrew" is routinely used on Wikipedia as a driver's race result, as stated above. Skybunny (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you notice that my addition did not list Mazepin as "20th", or show him on the grid as "20th" You did list Mazepin as starting P20. I corrected that (diff). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hah hah, you are absolutely right, and my apologies and hats off to you! All power to wiki editing, and you made the right edit. I think we both agree it belongs in there in any event, with no starting grid slot. But if the OP's objection is that "a source" doesn't show Mazepin in "a table" of "race results", here's a respected one that does. [4] So now I wonder 'Okay, if this source is included as one of them for the table, are we done? Has this been effectively cited?' Skybunny (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok this seems pretty slam dunk to add Mazepin as 'WD'. The hysterical IMO, IP user, and the other two registered, IMO much calmer, users sum up the position, accurately. I shall go back to a version of the table which includes Mazepin in the results. It is clear sources list Mazepin in one way or another. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Formula One Controversies

Surely the main article should go in the Formula One Controversies category right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.158.252 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Y It's in the category now. DH85868993 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn’t be. The grand prix weekend is not a controversy. Neither is 2021 British Grand Prix or 2008 Singapore Grand Prix to name a few.Tvx1 09:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Not only was this GP controversial, but the whole 2021 championship was too - because of the effect the controversial actions taken in this GP had on the final result.[5] This is clear to see in the reliable sources. Whether other GPs have been incorrectly categorised, or not, is irrelevant here. Here we need to decide if this GP is one of the "Formula One Controversies", and based on the reports, I am of the firm opinion that it most certainly is. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with De Facto, sources consider it contraversial, so we should to. SSSB (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Sources do not call this entire GP weekend a controversy. Moreover we have many precedents that we did not put into that category. We must remain neutral.Tvx1 10:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We have a lot less controversial things in that category. Reliable sources call it a controversy, so seems fine to be in that category- certainly more so than cars that one team complained about but did nothing about (which is what many of the articles in that category are). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Then they should be removed as well. Many wrongs don’t make a right. There are grands prix which featured actually much more controversial things which aren’t included. I still haven’t seen a single source which treated this entire GP weekend, the subject of the article, as a controversy. And even if some sources deem the restart controversial, we do not have to side with those sources. We need to stay neutral and show the opinions of both sides. Neutrality is already far enough away in this article as it is. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.Tvx1 10:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

”Some sources” include over half of the drivers who finished the race, five former world champions, and official Formula One media itself (indeed, Crofty and Brundle were saying the restart was controversial live on television before the chequered flag fell). There are Grands Prix (e.g. Canada 2019) in the the category that are less controversial than an unprecedented stewarding decision directly influencing the result of an entire championship; it’s probably the most high-profile officiating controversy in any sport since the NOLA no-call. Yes, it was only one incident in an entire weekend, but so were Prost and Senna colliding at Suzuka two years running, or Schumi trying to end Hill and Villeneuve’s championship runs. Sceptre (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You are clearly judging based on emotion and are overreacting immensely.Tvx1 18:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really; even the media arm of the Formula One group have been covering how the restart was controversial at length. If Seb's penalty at Montreal warrants the controversy category, then why doesn't this race? Sceptre (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that Formula One's media arm has mentioned that the grand prix was controversial, I think the burden for including in the category has been more than achieved. quin (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As you admit, the restart was controversial. Not the entire grand prix weekend which is the subject of this article.Tvx1 02:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

But that applies to most Grands Prix in the category: Suzuka 1989, Suzuka 1990, Adelaide 1994, and Jerez 1997 are in the category on the basis of one collision in an entire race; Imola 1982 and Austria 2002 on the basis of team orders (or lack thereof); Montreal 2019 because of Seb's unsafe re-entry. If Montreal 2019 warrants the category because Seb disagreed with the penalty, then so does this race given the RSes across the board which back up the categorisation. Sceptre (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article belings in the category. Yeah, only the restart was controversial, but this is the article that discusses the restart. Reliable sources are calling the race controversial, it is controversial, and if we weren't going to use the category here than it really shouldn't exist at all because nothing can meet the standard you've set for inclusion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. It's contradictory to say that we should not side with reliable sources indicating that the grand prix was controversial, while stating that one needs to show the opinions of both sides. The point of something being controversial is the fact that there are two sides to begin with. Therefore the only burden for the article's inclusion in the category will come down to reliable sources, not an effort to achieve a (false) balance -- which also does not necessitate the article's omission, either. quin (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Inadmissable protests

@Tvx1: this edit (Special:Diff/1060248541, which I accidentially reverted through edit conflict) is incorrect: both the protest regarding the overtake under safety car[6], and the protest regarding the safety car withdrawal [7] were considered admissable by the stewards. SSSB (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, you reverted it yourself SSSB (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Race reactions

I believe the neutrality dispute on this section is in large part due to its entire focus being on the Masi safety car decision. The inclusion of negative reactions from drivers, former drivers, and the press is fine, but we can also focus on reactions congratulating Max Verstappen's win. This means that criticisms of the race result can stay (as we have reliable sources for this and in my opinion the length of it has not reached undue focus) while preserving neutrality by mentioning celebrations (especially from the Dutch media and fans). Again, the section is Race Reactions -- not Masi decision reactions. As it stands this section has a heavy Anglo-American point of view and looking for reactions internationally would achieve neutrality. quin (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing in Matt Dickinson / Times Article

Have been reverted, so am looking to see if I'm alone in this (I've run the current/original revision through some friends without prompting them on what to look for and they were also confused by the phrasing, so I actually know it's not just me!).

My understanding is that the sentence "[Dickinson] dismissed complaints that the decision was made for entertainment, saying that "rules in sport are contrived—and frequently tweaked to make a sport more entertaining—and we should not pretend that there is only one perspective of justice, or that sport is an endless pursuit of fairness" is confusing. It's contradictory to say that he dismissed complaints that the decision was made for entertainment, followed by "rules in sports are contrived"!

In other words, the quote (and the source) shows that Dickinson is dismissing the complaints, not dismissing that it's not for entertainment. Both are very different. The current phrasing implies the latter, and is wrong.

My suggestion is to modify the sentence to some form that does not render the next quote confusing, e.g. "dismissed complaints over decisions being made for entertainment, saying that 'rules in sport are contrived'". I was told that this phrasing is clumsy. I don't think it is, moreover this accurately reflects what Dickinson is dismissing. Thoughts? quin 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the original sentence is contradictory, I also agree that the proposed wording is confusing and clumsy. I suggest, "[Dickinson] dismissed complaints concerned with decisions being made for entertainment, stating that "rules in sport are contrived—and frequently tweaked to make a sport more entertaining—and we should not pretend that there is only one perspective of justice, or that sport is an endless pursuit of fairness" SSSB (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get how this is contradictory or confusing, and I'm saying that in good faith as the editor who originally inserted the quote and has reverted changes twice. Dickinson dismissed complaints that the decision was made for entertainment. He says it doesn't matter because rules are often bent. That's justification for his dismissal, not a contradiction. I don't understand why that needs to be changed, but if it does I don't mind. However, the two changes you made did read clumsily, and I don't like SSSB's alternative either because of the "complaints concerned with" bit. I suggest rephrasing to "[Dickinson] rejected complaints that the decision was made for entertainment, stating that "rules in sport are contrived—and frequently tweaked to make a sport more entertaining—and we should not pretend that there is only one perspective of justice, or that sport is an endless pursuit of fairness". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It's contradictory because "[Dickinson] dismissed complaints that the decision was made for entertainment" sounds as though Dickinson is rejecting these complaints becuase he doesn't think the decision was made for entertainment. This is then contradicted by the quote, in which he justifies the idea that the decision was made for entertainment. (i.e. why justify a situation he doesn't think happened). If this is what the article contains (I don't have access, and so I don't know) we need a "Dickinson stated that even if the decision had been made for entertainment purposes that ""rules in sport are contrived—and frequently tweaked..."" However, as far as I can tell Dickingson is rejecting the arguement based on the fact that rules are changed for entertainment.

Though even as I write this message I'm more unclined to see 5225C's viewpoint (that there is nothing wrong with it, in a Rabbit–duck illusion kind of phenomenon.) I'm not able to accuratly assess 5225C's proposition while I'm still in the "current wording makes sense" mindset (assuming I'll switch back), but can I suggest "[Dickinson] rejected complaints that the decision was made for entertainment, on the grounds that "rules in sport are contrived—and frequently tweaked to make a sport more entertaining—and we should not pretend that there is only one perspective of justice, or that sport is an endless pursuit of fairness"? I think this unambiguously connects the two strains of thought. SSSB (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to read the article, you can use the archive link in the citation to bypass the paywall. In the article, Dickinson argues that many British fans are being hypocritical in complaining about Masi's decision while also excusing numerous bad decisions that favoured Britain in other situations. He dismisses their complaints saying that whether or not the decision was made for entertainment does not matter because rules in sport are often bent in one way or another to provide a better show. Perhaps the best way to communicate this is "[Dickinson] rejected complaints that the decision could have been made for entertainment, on the grounds that "rules in sport are contrived—and frequently tweaked to make a sport more entertaining—and we should not pretend that there is only one perspective of justice, or that sport is an endless pursuit of fairness". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought that was what Dickinson was arguing (about time someone made that arguement). That wording is perfect. SSSB (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating case of rabbit-duck as SSSB pointed out. The suggested wording feels great to me. quin 00:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversy own article?

Forgive me if this has been discussed previously, but I feel the details regarding post-race controversy should be made into it's own article. There is precedence for this with crashgate, and this would certainly be similar in magnitude. There are details here that veer far away from the topic of this article, the race.
I propose moving the nitty gritty details to it's own article, keeping a paragraph or two here in the Post-Race section with a "Main Article" tag. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone did: The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal. It needs drastic pruning and summarizing, if any editors here are interested in improving it. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't think this has the independent notability required for a split.Tvx1 22:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone created an article about the last lap controversy, and it was deleted at AFD. Which demonstrates that there shouldn't be a separate spin off article for the controversy. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The controversy doesn't need it's own article, however, about 70% of this article is about the controversy itself condensed into the Race heading. I believe the sections on reactions, analysis, FIA inquiry and regulation changes should be in a separate Controversy section separate from the Race section for the sake of readability, and keep the latter section strictly about the race itself. tofubird 06:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Reactions

The part of the reactions is clearly biased as it only includes negative reaction of those who criticized the procedures followed. However, there are journalists and former drivers who have defended what happened as legitimate and none of them are mentioned. In order to give an objective view of what happened both point of views should be included. In addition the article includes declarations of drivers who were against what happened on the last lap, however it makes no mentions as to the rest of the drivers such us Alonso who expressed on the radio that the cars should have unlapped themselves on lap 56 163.117.64.22 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add them. SSSB (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Flow and repetition

It is a good idea for editors to re-read this article from start to finish as if they were readers. It actually tells the whole story twice. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Action : Lock Page and Watch for Vandalism by Hamilton Fan

Multiple pages on F1 are being vandalized by Hamilton cult fans with incorrect information and a false one sided narrative.

Please ensure any edits are controlled and page is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarmRichards (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CarmRichards: - this is not the correct venue to make page protection requests. These need to be made at WP:RPP. SSSB (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Bit arrogant to claim pages are being hijacked by Hamilton fans who give a false 1 sided narrative, when a couple of weeks ago, this page was implying only Brits had an issue with how fair the procedures where, and only quotes supporting Masi were included (e.g. Grosjean, Vettel etc)ROC7 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

*yawn*, you two are as bad as each other. Right now we have too many quotes, most of which all say the same thing. We need quality not quantity (readers don't want a de facto poll of opinions). SSSB (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Practical consequence of controversy

I am trying to insert the following text into the article:

Had Masi applied the then rules correctly, the race would not have restarted at all, and Hamilton would have won both the race and championship.

The text speaks for itself, and reflects exactly what the source says. However, SSSB has now twice removed it, for reasons that do not appear to withstand scrutiny. Firstly, he characterises the source as 'opinion'. This is probably correct in a very literal sense but is also practially meaningless: every source is the 'opinion' of the person writing it, no matter how hard they are trying to be objective and neutral. Thus, the pertinent issue is whether the source is reliable. To my knowledge, the BBC is a very reliable source.

SSSB also says that the stewards found that the rules were not broken. That is true, and that is a pertinent piece of information that certainly should be in the article (and is). However, what the source clearly tells us, on a fair reading, is that times have moved since the Stewards' ruling and that it appears to be now widely accepted by the FIA that the rules were wrongly applied, as characterised above.Telanian7790 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because one person (Andrew Benson) says that it's true, that doesn't make it so. The FIA conducted a whole inquiry on this issue (which is covered in this article, IMO in too much detail), and that has a lot more weight than one person view on this complex issue, especially when that one person has no power in F1. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I removed it once (I removed it from the lead, being under the impression that it was already in the body, otherwised I'd have moved it into the body), I then moved it to where I thought it flowed better. I'm more than happy for Benson's opinion to be included. Secondly, "every source is the 'opinion' of the person writing it," - no, it's not. Lot's of the sources state provable fact, where it isn't this article should make clear that it isn't undeniably true (within reasonable doubt, i.e. opinion), which is what I did in my edit (see diff above). SSSB (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Finally, Benson's article makes an oversight: it would have been perfectly legal for none of the cars to overtake which is why the statement "Had Masi applied the then rules correctly, the race would not have restarted at all," - had to be clarified. As the race could have re-started, without any of the cars un-lapping themselves (which very nearly happened). SSSB (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies SSSB. I saw you had removed my text, but I failed to see that you had replaced it with your own. Upon reviewing your text, I think there's little difference between us. I have no difficulty with you characterising Benson's analysis in the text itself as an opinion if you really want to (I simply objected to everything being removed for that reason). However, I think the correct word is 'opined' rather than 'opinionated'.

More substantively, do you have a reliable source supporting your claim that it would have been perfectly legal for none of the cars to overtake before the restart? I'm not saying you're wrong (I don't know either way). But I don't think your claim is entitled to any weight unless and until you can support it with a reliable source. If you can't, then in my view the text should still read "Had Masi applied the then rules correctly..."Telanian7790 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean other than the regulations which say "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so...any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car." (i.e. whether the instruction is given is at the clerk of the course's discretion.)? There is this motorsport.com article which states: "Initially, Masi had been within his rights to state that 'Lapped Cars will not be allowed to overtake' - which meant Verstappen would be trapped behind five backmarkers before he could get a run on Hamilton."

I don't think there was any need for your passive aggressive tone. But you have answered my question, so thank you for that.Telanian7790 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate Summary of 19 March 2022 FIA Findings

The paragraph "On 19 March 2022 the FIA published their official report into the Abu Dhabi controversy. That report concluded that the regulations had been applied incorrectly, in that not all lapped cars had unlapped themselves, and the safety car had not completed one additional lap before coming back into the pitlane. The report attributed these matters to human error, concluding that Michael Masi had acted in good faith and that there could be different interpretations of the rules. The report further confirmed that the 2021 Formula One World Championship results remained valid." found in "FIA inquiry and regulation changes" is inaccurate to the statements made by the FiA in the 19 March 2022 found at fia.com/2021-f1-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-report-world-motor-sport-council-19-march-2022.

The articles surrounding the report misquote it as concluding that the race director "called the safety car back into the pit lane without it having completed an additional lap as required by the Formula 1 sporting regulations", this quote does not appear anywhere in the 2021 F1 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Report, nor does the FiA admit that Masi made a mistake. The closest to this is found in 30 and 31 respectively, which read:

"30. The safety car unlapping procedure was a central topic of discussion during the detailed analysis and clarification exercise, stemming from the misunderstanding regarding the application of this procedure at the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP, pursuant to Articles 48.12 and 48.13 of the F1 Sporting Regulations.

31. It was apparent from the analysis that there could be different interpretations of Article 48.12 and/or Article 48.13, and that this likely contributed to some of the confusion surrounding the safety car unlapping procedure. It was therefore considered that these provisions of the F1 Sporting Regulations would benefit from clarification."

The report itself quotes the conclusion found by Stewards in 2021 Document 58 in point 13 of the report stating that "although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message “Safety Car in this lap” has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap."

The report does not contradict the conclusion found in December of 2021, nor does it state that the race director was incorrect in their application of the rules as 48.13 overrides 48.12.

What I have done is made the following edit: "That report concluded that the regulations had been appliedinterpreted incorrectly,".

As for the rest of it, what Benson has said matches perfectly with report. The report admits the relevant articles were not interpreted correctly (by humans), and Benson (and we) reports this as being "human error". The reports says that it was articles 48.12 and 48.13 which were incorrectly interpreted, and what Benson and we have done is simply state what those article govern ("...in that not all lapped cars had unlapped themselves, and the safety car had not completed one additional lap before coming back into the pitlane.") Unless you can provide a source which interprets the FIA report differently, I see no basis to change the text further. SSSB (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No that is not what it says. In fact, it doesn't even use the words incorrect or incorrectly at all. The report only states the fact to what happened on track doesn't exactly match what article 48.12 requests. They nowhere state that that application or interpretation was incorrect. They merely state that different interpretations were possible. Moreover, they only cite human error with regards to the application of article 48.13, in that the procedure of identifying the lapped cars having been a manual one led to the human error of not correctly identifying all the lapped cars. Neither Benson's nor your reflection of the report's findings matches it perfectly at all, so I have copyedited the paragraph to make it more accurately reflect the actual report. See also [8].Tvx1 21:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

the procedure of identifying the lapped cars having been a manual one led to the human error of not correctly identifying all the lapped cars. -- this is not explicitly stated in the report, rather it's a general conclusion that identification of lapped cars has hitherto been a manual process. The key points summary on the website states that "manual interventions generally carry a higher risk of human error," but #30-31 of the report is more germane. The current phrasing implies that Masi's mistake was erroneously misidentifying the lapped cars, but the report concludes that confusion regarding 48.12, 48.13 is what contributed to confusion regarding safety car unlapping procedures. Agreed that usage of the words incorrect is not the language the FIA used. tofubird 06:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The summary published by the World Motorsport Council (linked in the article) literally contains the following: "The process of identifying lapped cars has up until now been a manual one and human error lead to the fact that not all cars were allowed to un-lap themselves." This is reflected as such in that article.Tvx1 14:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

References

I confess that I am probably biased, since I drafted the initial text that we're debating about, but I would respectfully endorse SSSB's defence of the same in his comment at 10:19 on 25 March, which I found lucid and clear. The suggested changes appear to replace very straightforward and clear prose with overly complex and needlessly opaque prose.

Take, for instance, the following: "They noted that the safety car had not completed an additional lap before leaving the track as required by regulation 48.12". Now that is a slavishly accurate reproduction of the initial primary source, but it is rather laboured. If regulation 48.12 requires the safety car to complete an additional lap, and the safety car in fact did not do that, then it follows as a matter of simple English comprehension that regulation 48.12 was not followed. Or, in other words, applied incorrectly. The secondary source I used - the BBC article - accordingly characterised this as an incorrect application of the regulations. It is difficult to see why that interpretation is wrong and why we cannot follow that here.

In summary, surely our goal should be to summarise the relevant sources faithfully but also lucidly; not to slavishly reproduce turgid and opaque text in a primary source.Telanian7790 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate conclusion of Mercedes post-race protest

In the Mercedes' post-race protests section, the following explanation is given for the dismissal of Mercedes' protest involving Max Verstappen overtaking behind the safety car: "While the first issue was dismissed because Verstappen being momentarily ahead of Hamilton's during the safety car restart procedure did not constitute an overtake, the second issue was more contentious, with Mercedes retaining legal counsel for the protest."

However, this is inaccurate. I was not able to find anything from the FIA stating that the move "did not constitute an overtake". Instead, the FIA says that the matter was dismissed because Verstappen "was not in front when the Safety Car period ended". In my opinion, claiming that the FIA did not consider it an overtake is a misrepresentation of what the documents from the FIA actually say.

ComputerWhiz1 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think agree with you, but am unwilling to agree with you wholeheartdly until I see a copy of the documents. Can you (or anyone else) find links to the relevant documents? SSSB (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

See FIA 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Document 57 or section I.A.12 of the FIA Executive Summary Report from 19 March 2022. ComputerWhiz1 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@ComputerWhiz1:  Done: Special:Diff/1080108696 SSSB (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a Brief Explanation of What a Safety Car Is For/Does in the Safety Car Controversy Section?

As it stands, the section is mostly about the press and case afterwards, but for people such as myself who have little to no knowledge of Formula One racing, I still don't know what the actual "issue" had been exactly as I don't know what a safety car is for/does in a race. Of course, I could go to a more general F1 article to read about this, but I feel like a brief explanation would not be inappropriate as this section is labeled Safety Car Controversy, so the section necessitates an understanding of what a safety car is for/does in a race.

And perhaps the name of this section should be more generalized to "Championship Dispute" or something to the like as the controversy was specific to this event and Safety Car Controversy seems like it should be part of a more general article on F1 racing?

Sorry if my suggestions seem to be out-of-line, I really am totally out-of-my-element here and only came here cus I had seen a news article about this year's Italian GP recalling memories of Abu Dhabi and so I was just satisfying a slight bit of curiosity.

Teacherkshuang (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Teacherkshuang: The purpose of the safety car isn't really relevant to the controversy. The safety car in general isn't controversial in anyway. The only controversies surronding the safety car, is how the withdrawal of the safety car is managed.

I think what the safety car controversy section needs is almost a kind-of mini lead that summaries the contents of the subsequent minor headings within the "Safety car controversy" section. Any thoughts? SSSB (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing GA nomination

Ricciardo Best, I've removed the GA nomination template -- see these statistics and the WP:GAN/I instructions which require that you get a consensus from significant contributors that the article is ready to be nominated for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please discuss on the talk page rather than edit war. I've reverted to the version before the reversions started; I have no opinion on whether the BBC source is biased but it should be discussed here so that a consensus can be reached. There's no harm in discussing first and involving others if necessary and waiting to update the article. Please also be aware of WP:3RR, which will lead to a block if ignored. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the edit in question: Special:Diff/1173774371

The bias of the source is not the major issue here.

The major issue is that this edit breaks Wikipedia's neutrality policies. This is for several reason:

• Firstly, it attempts (like the source, hence the claims of source bias) to state as fact something which is little more than speculation of the events. The claim that Masi "ignored" (by definition this means he knew the rule and activly choose not to apply it. In context it also implies he did it to favour a specific side) the rule is unsupported by the sources. Masi, the FIA and most sources all follow the line that this was the result of several errors. Primarily failing to interpret a poorly worded rule as intended. (The wording of the rule was subsequently altered to avoid a repeat, see article for details). You could argue (as many sources have done) that this was intentional, and that Masi knew the correct interpretation and choose to ignore it, but this is speculation. So we must state it as that. Not attempt to state it as fact.
• Secondly, the location of this insertion is not appropriate. The purpose of that secion is to describe the events that happened on the track. Attribution of why this was done, together with attribution of blame comes later in the article. So putting here that he "ignored" the rule would be inappriate even if it were established fact, but, again, it isn't established fact. Therefore, Benson's comments about the rule being "ignored" belongs together with the rest of the opinion and analysis, where it can be neutrally balanced out by opposing opinions and analysis.

  As a side note, I still think a good case can be made that the opinion that he "ignored" the rule would be WP:UNDUE, as I don't see this claim being made anywhere else.

Therefore, the edit is simply not neutral, and this claim of rules being "ignored" cannot be inserted into the article in this way without WP:NPOV being broken. SSSB (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the topic (though I did watch the race). Could we address this by citing other opinions from other news coverage, or from expert sources, that make it clear that this is a minority opinion? And perhaps the existence of partisan coverage has been discussed in reliable sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We have a Race reactions and commentary section, which would the appropraite place to put this comment. I don't personally have any objections to placing the "ignored" accusation there. I don't know how 5225C feels about this? SSSB (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Benson's opinion is already mentioned in detail in three different contexts in the reactions section. This is nothing more than an IP disruptively editing to try and assert their preferred narrative. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at that section I agree. I hadn't read it in detail; I was more concerned with stopping an edit war, but now I see that Benson's views are well-represented. I don't think more is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)