2021 Formula One World Championship

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first paragraph below the picture, the first sentence has a grammatical error. It says, “... an end the...” and it should say, “and end to the...” 24.184.190.225 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done, thank you. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A number of Norris and Ricciardo race results are the wrong way round under the "World Constructors' Championship standings" table. It looks as if Norris' results should be on the top line and Ricciardo's on the bottom. The errors are as follows;

Hungarian GP - It states Norris can 11th and Ricciardo retired. These need to be switched. Belgium GP - It states Norris came 4th and Ricciardo came 14th. These need to be switched Italian GP - It states Norris won and Ricciardo came second. These need to be switched. Russian GP - It states Norris 4th and Ricciardo came 7th. These need to be switched. USA GP - It states Norris 5th and Ricciardo came 8th. These need to be switched. Saudi Arabian GP - It states Norris 5th and Ricciardo came 10th. These need to be switched. 90.251.38.240 (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Constructors' table isn't "one line per driver", the best result goes on top - regardless of whose result it was. SSSB (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia realise its whole model is a tool for weaponising the truth through circular re-publication of so-called sources? The Hamilton Verstappen saga is a prime example of this.

My main gripe is this article might as well as be a PR release from FIA and its hopeful view that this season and the corruption it shone a light on will be quickly forgotten. The report it released a week ago was called out as early as in January that it would be a whitewash, then 97 days after the race ended it shamelessly did just that! It whitewashed conclusion was the end of the Abu Dhabi race was simply "human error". But the report barely mentions Masi and the role he played in the decision. Good grief, the radio messages between Red Bull and Masi clearly reveal he was doing exactly what Red Bull wanted - let Verstappen on the newer tyres have a free run at Hamilton. That's not human error that's collusion. FIA's report also tries to obfuscate that clear breaches in its own rules were made by saying in the report that those rules were ambiguous; not they weren't (lapped cars must all unlap and the safety car must complete one full lap before racing can resume).

Sorry but this article's presentation of facts is false and a misrepresentation of available facts because it can be only written (using Wikipedia's own rules) using cut and pasted clips from sources that are themselves based on FIA claims and what it wants in the news. The 2021 F1 season ended, so get over it. Hence my statement that FIA's PR dept must love this article. The publication of the report that is supposed to draw a line under this season actually does the opposite because it fails to address the egregious events while highlighting (ie undue) mundane and non-contentious issues too prominently.

In conclusion, the 2021 F1 season article should be written up as a watershed moment for revealing for publicly - what many have known for years - is how money, relationships and outcomes are all intertwined in such a high profile event (no one remember how Sepp Blatter ran FIFA?) This article normalises and promotes the PR from FIA, none of which is supported by the evidence.

Moving forward and starting with this article, Wikipedia should carry a disclaimer at the top of every article stating that articles are a work of opinion based on what has been published by others and therefore is not based on actual facts or evidence.146.200.202.126 (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The 2021 F1 season ended, so get over it. - that's what I suggest you do. It is clear that you reject the FIA's conclusions, but Wikipedia reports secondary sources, not your opinion. And secondary sources seem to accept the FIA's report. If there is a source which has the same conclusions as you do, by all means share it. But your opinion of the matters are irrelevant and will be ignored. SSSB (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I share SSSB's general conclusions (although from my perspective I would have toned down the way it was said, as the general quote [and this is a quote that is repeated and not directly from SSSB] "get over it" might be construed as slightly divisive, and now thinking about it slightly gas lightly). The entire model of Wiki is reporting verifiable facts, and it might be worth looking at the main WP guidelines to get an idea of this (see also Wiki: Five pillars). Whilst I note your concerns about the F1 2021 season, we can't have everyone writing their personal opinion on this page. WP is supposed to be a spring-board for readers to go do further research, which is why there are references. When you note that "FIA's PR dept must love this article" maybe yes, maybe no; I suspect the "chatter" in mainstream news outlets forced their hand to actually consider a report, which they wouldn't otherwise have done, which is the power of modern social media to force mainstream media to take concerns like these more seriously nowadays (I'm sure there must be an academic study examining this). More constructively I'll suggest the following: (1) register for Wikipedia, (2) find some reputable sources that argue the a different point of view, (3) edit them into the article. I am sure there are many articles supporting somewhat your opinion. As another alternative you could make the primary source yourself? - consider writing an opinion piece for a newspaper, or maybe even your own fact-checked book? If you write a book, you can get an ISBN number, and then potential cite it (there's a guide to referencing things). Sorry this isn't an "easy" answer, but there is a guide to what Wikipedia is and isn't. If there are secondary sources that support a position then edit the article and cite them. I hope this helps. Have a look at the pages I've wiki linked, and if you have more questions please continue the comments on this talk page. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Writing an opinion piece for a newspaper won't get you into the article unless the newspaper recognises you as an expert either in Formula One, or (possibly) corruption in sport or law (based on the angle you are going for). Extending on what I said earlier and following up of Master of Ninja's point about research, "lapped cars must all unlap" wasn't the rule at the time. SSSB (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for the clarification re: the opinion piece - which is something I've should have picked up on and self-corrected. For the top poster, WP is easy to get into, but there are some rules to make sure everything is as verifiable as possible. A person can be dubious about some of the positions that the FIA have taken (and I will admit I am astonished about the mental-gymnanstics about what they do, as I still don't get the ?2020? Ferrari engine secret agreement they enforced), but the concepts that the top-poster has outlined are not Wikipedia issues to an extent - they're the basis of strength across the whole encyclopedia. Whilst top-poster has posted anonymously I am more than happy to engage to bring you into the general community if you wish. As SSSB's reply - maybe you should consider becoming a topic expert for a newspaper? If you write enough publicly, you can potentially become a more reliable source for WP. [I'm going for the positive encouragement of becoming the subject expert that you were meant to be - it's needs dedication and commitment though]. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Constructors Standing section, the results for Red Bull at the Italian Grand Prix are mixed up, while the results imply that the upper row refers to Verstappen and the lower row refers to Perez, by association, Verstappen is credited with a 5th place finish, and Checo with a DNF, when reality states the other way around. https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2021/races/1076/italy/race-result.html 2806:10AE:8:A94F:8D7B:1FC4:7E65:D0DC (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The results are correct. It is not one row per driver, as has been explained countless times before. --Marbe166 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For the "World Constructors' Championship standings" Results for each constructor have been listed in an order which is inconsistent with the previous table for World Drivers' Championship standings, with the results not being displayed aligned with the drivers.

For example in Alpine, Esteban Ocon placed 11th (and therefore 2nd amongst Alpine), however his Win in Hungary is displayed on the first Alpine line entry. Later on, Fernando Alonso secured 3rd place in Qatar, and is similarly shown on the first Alpine line entry.

This implies the same driver secured both 1st and 3rd for Hungary and Qatar respectively.

My suggestion would be to re-order these slightly to show the first line entry for each constructor to be the result of their best placed finisher for the SEASON in order to keep this consistent and easier to read when comparing the Drivers Championship standings (i.e. it would enable easier to compare results between teammates within the same constructor team) Gurin jeimuzu (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It "implies" nothing of the sort, and this table's purpose is not to compare team mates. Finally, it is consistent with the driver's standings, in the sense that results are ordered best to worst. It is also consistent with how the FIA present their standings, and presented in the easiest way for readers to glean the information which this table is designed to convey.

If you want to compare the results between two drivers, you can use the drivers results table, the article's on the cars (which does have a separate row for each driver, though not for this purpose) or a specialised stats website (such as StatsF1. It is not fair to redesign a table so you can perform analysis beyond the intended scope of the table. SSSB (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Democfest removed a line of text and a reference from this section, claiming it was unclear who an opinion was being attributed to. I have restored this line and the reference, with small edits to give clearer attribution, but have no strong opinion on whether or not this line's inclusion is actually warranted. Others who wish to discuss the matter are free to do so below and seek a consensus on the issue. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't neutral to have critism of the report without a defence (or specifying that no defence was provided). SSSB (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
We also risk WP:UNDUE emphasis on the post-race event which arguabely isn't relevant to the season at all, only the Grand Prix. SSSB (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting edits, and interesting edit comments. I haven't gone in and read the referenced articles, but this is more a commentary on the application of wikipedia policies and trying to get a balanced article. Was there a defence to the comments? If there wasn't how extensive does the original editor need to be to make it balanced? Also from the edit comment if we don't allow third party comments this needs to be something that is throughout WP, and a lot of WP is opinions from 3rd parties (there does need to be some level of notability) - a lot of WP is reporting commentary from different viewpoints and perhaps it does need some commentary on favour of the last lap decision. I would suggest that the referred article does refer to the season, as it was something that occurred during the season that the FIA report and the following report is based on. Looking at the original edit that is being referred to, the edit comment is odd as it is obvious which media said this. If there is an alternative viewpoint it is up to the deleting editor to present it I would have suggested. This can be seen in WP:NPOV, as well as some of the sub policies such as WP:POVDELETION and WP:ASSERT. Actually reading the WP policies, I see the point User:Democfest is making but the proper action was not to delete the statement as it is properly attested, but to write in the counter-argument. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• There are two issues here. Firstly, the content wasn't presented naturally, and secondly, the opinion of one journalist is not suitable for an encyclopedia, as explained in WP:UNDUE. Any one of these issues individually is enough to warrant it being taken out of the article, let alone both. Until a more neutral way to present this can be found, and it is an opinion which can be attributed to multiple people, it has no place anywhere on Wiki English. SSSB (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Apologies, have been busy. I suspect it is all to do with what was said - and I said I'm taking this debate from a philosophical view, and to see how much weight was put on it. I am a relative anti-deletionist, and would rather have people edit and add, rather than remove content. You can probably tell I'm not that involved or interested in the exact point the original poster of the content made, rather than its done correctly. I have been tempted to cull some of this article previously, but then it would go against my stated anti-deletionist stance. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)