Talk:2013 Bahrain Grand Prix

Excised by Prisonermonkeys

The race occurred to the backdrop of long-term pro-democracy protests with demonstrators attempting to overthrow the U.S.-backed regime. This was the third consecutive year that Arab Spring protests affected the running of the race; the 2011 event was cancelled and the 2012 event went ahead against despite efforts by demonstrators to disrupte the race. On 15 April, Formula One chief Bernie Ecclestone dismissed concerns over the running of the race. On 16 April, demonstrators erected makeshift roadblocks and barricades of burning tyres and graffiti was seen reading: "No F1. Don't race on our blood."

The above was excised on 19 April 2013 by Prisonermonkeys. I dispute the excision, as I believe it skews the coverage of the article, making it from a general coverage about the event, to being specialist coverage of only the sports side of things. This is a general encyclopedia, so should include coverage of the controversies surrounding events, from outside the field of the event. As the protests have been covered widely on general news about the event, it behooves us to cover the events evenly, and not such as the only thing that happens were that cars raced on the track. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Its inclusion - particularly when placed before the events of the race - implies that the protests are as serious as they were in 2011 and 2012, which is not the case. Furthermore, the wording clearly takes the side of the protesters. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you can fix it, Prisonermonkeys instead of removing it? As I can see the protests are still getting more coverage than the race despite that coverage being less than last year. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any sources to support it right now. Neverthless, I feel that the wording I have removed violates WP:NPOV (which is why I removed it in the first place). It's clearly taking sides with the protesters, and is unacceptable.

The issue here is really how much weight is given to the protests. Including them as the first item in the article is wrong, because it puts undue weight on them. If they were on the same scale as 2011 or 2012, then I could see that happening - but there has been little to no coverage of this year's protests in motorsport media, so I'm having trouble gauging how much focus should be placed on it.

Perhaps the best way forward would be something like the 2012 Canadian Grand Prix page, which also features a section on protests (for entirely different reasons). That article makes it clear that protests existed, but they did not disrupt the Grand Prix itself. The same seems to be happening here; there are protests, but since they haven't directed affected the race or anyone participating in it, they should not be covered as the first item in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a matter of weight. The level of coverage of protests I mentioned was after seeing google news results for "Bahrain" and "Bahrain F1". You know not only motorsport media covers the F1, at least not the one in Bahrain. I don't know much about F1, and hence and not getting involved in editing, but my point was since you had suggestions about how this could be improved, why don't you implement them instead of complete removal of the section? (i.e. you could make it less pro-protesters and move it down to a suitable section). Last year you've done some great work and I trust you won't disappoint me now. Cheers and sorry for any muddling caused; I saw the IP comment and though I should give my two cents. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

And just in case you were lacking sources about anti-F1 protests, you could ask me to provide them (I archive all news about protests - so far over 120 different news stories dealing with anti-F1 protests) or search for them in Google news. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I just explained why I didn't change the wording but saw fit to delete it - because I felt the wording was prejudicial, but I didn't have an alternative with sources. Having no mention of the protests was a lesser evil than keeping the wording as it was in place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Arab protests are not motorsport. Keep the activists out from this article! "Arab spring" is but a cover for fundamentalists to seize power in those countries - a goal that has already been partially accomplished.188.67.66.205 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is totally unacceptable that there is no mention of the protests at all. You quite clearly do not help the neutrality of an article you think is skewed one way, by skewing it in completely the opposite direction, and you basically leave yourself open to accusations of bias yourself. This was not a "lesser evil" in any way, shape or form. I'm going to insert the following in a protest section:

• In the context of the ongoing Bahraini uprising, public protests also occured over the 2013 staging of the race, after the 2011 event was cancelled and the 2012 event went ahead against despite efforts by demonstrators to disrupt the race.

That is simply an accurate statement of what has clearly occured according to reliable sources and doesn't take anyone's 'side', so if it is removed, I will be reporting the person who removes it, as they will clearly be trying to censor this article toward one particular view (that there was no protesting) at the expense of reality. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing protests from this article does not mean that one denies the existence of protests. Or do you believe that a person denies everything that he does not explicitly mention? This article should be about the grand prix event pure and simple. Protests can be dealed with in other articles. Besides "reality" is not some commanding entity that compels us to something determined. Don't think you own the right to alone interpret reality.87.93.62.153 (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of protest section. Articles covering the F1 race also cover the protests, why should Wikipedia not follow them? Afterall Wikipedia is built on what reliable sources say. How much we should cover of protests is a matter of weight as I and Prisonermonkeys agreed on above. Examples of articles covering both the race and the protests: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. I've deliberately selected articles in sport websites/sections only. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the section on the protests to the bottom of the page, similar to the 2012 Canadian Grand Prix page. The reason for this is because describing the protests first puts undue weight on them; the most important events should be lsited first. While the protests happened, they were nowhere near as widespread as the protests in 2011 or 2012, and so describing them first puts more weight on them than they deserve.

I also deleted the picture of the protester. It was simply far too big, dominated the section of the page it was included on, and appeared to have been included simply to draw attention to the protesters' point of view. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That is fine. Images can be resized, didn't you know that? Anyway, I'm re-adding it with lower size. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For a section that is only two lines long?

Sorry, but no sale. It puts undue weight on the section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, your statements about this issue simply do not reflect reality. Anyone who describes the protests as "relatively minor" or tries to claim that this race was "anything but" controversial is quite clearly not looking at the sources. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Why Webber only 2places down?

Webber got three place penalty last round yet is dropped only by two places. Any logic in these things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.170.143 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton got his penalty before Webber did, therefore Webber moved to 4th, after that he got dropped to 7th. Jordyvandebunt (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, it's the other way around: Webber got his penalty before Hamilton did, so he got dropped to 8th. After that Hamilton got his penalty dropping him to 9th, moving Webber up to 7th. Jordyvandebunt (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put in a footnote explaining this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This means that penalties to others can nullify the effect of one's own penalty and those that have got their penalty first are at an advantage. Imagine what it would look like if same kind of logic was applied in real life!188.67.128.255 (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can remember a qualifying session where Rubens Barrichello qualified 5th, got dropped 5 places, and eventually started 6th because of other penalties! Jordyvandebunt (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversial

The following sources describe the race as controversial or the most controversial: Yahoo, Daily Mail, IB Times, Reuters, BBC, The Independent, The telegraph, NY Times and I could go on and on. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Only in general terms. They describe the Bahrain Grand Prix as being controversial, not individual events. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you, but I'm open for persuasion. The Grand Prix is the event, i.e. the race. For instance to quote the IB Times[19]: "the scheduled controversial Formula 1 Grand Prix, which is scheduled for next weekend" and NY Times[20]: "in recent years has been its most unpopular, tense and controversial race." Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's saying that the Bahrain Grand Prix is controversial, not the 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix. The idea of the event is presented as being controversial, but the individual events are not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix is just another Bahrain Grand Prix, and according to the Telegraph[21] "the grand prix retains its status as the most controversial.", which means this 2013 event is controversial. The lead is supposed to be a summary for the article, and I see the part you removed as a good summary for the protest section without giving it undo weight. Can you self revert your self and please re-insert the image? Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note before I leave for the day. If it's just with the word "controversial", then you may revert yourself and remove that word until we agree on something. According to WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". The protest section is clearly important enough to have at least 1 sentence in the lead (and it was at the end of it, just like in the body of article). Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Including it in the article lead overstates its importance. If this were the only year where protests took place, then perhaps I could understand its inclusion - but as it stands, the protests had no effect on the running of the 2013 race, certainly in comparions to the 2011 and 2012 races, where the protests dominated the race. Describing the race as controversial in the article lead assigns undue weight to the issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you intentionally trying to miss the point? I said leave out the word "controversial" till we agree on something, but keep the one single line about protests. No one is comparing the situation this year to the previous years except you, and you're doing it the wrong way. Was last year coverage of protests in the media more significant? yes and it probably warranted it a whole paragraph in the lead. Does this mean that this year coverage of protests in media is so insignificant that it doesn't even warrant a mention (a single line) in the lead (which I remind you again is a summary of the whole article)? No. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Back to talk about the use of the word "controversial" to describe the race in the lead. I would like to remind you that in Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, not our own ideas or points of view (just because the race was more controversial last year, doesn't mean it wasn't controversial at all this year or wasn't controversial enough to get a mention in the lead). Reliable sources as shown above describe the race not only as controversial, but the most controversial. I find myself having to quote a bigger number of sources to explain myself clearly:

1. "the controversial race" BBC
2. "The controversial event" The Week
3. "Sunday's controversial Formula 1 Grand Prix."IB Times
4. "the scheduled controversial Formula 1 Grand Prix, which is scheduled for next weekend" IB Times
5. "Sunday’s controversial race" Daily Mail
6. "the most controversial F1 race of the year" Sports Business Daily
7. "Bahrain is the most controversial Grand Prix on the calendar" Yahoo
8. "Bahrain is the most controversial race on the calendar" Reuters
9. "a controversial Formula 1 race" Russia Today
10. "F1 courts controversy with Bahrain race" Financial Times
11. "Controversy lingers as F1 heads to Bahrain" The Star - AFP
12. "the controversial Bahrain Grand Prix." The Independent
13. "the grand prix retains its status as the most controversial." The Telegraph
14. "its most unpopular, tense and controversial race." NY Times
15. "F1 should not be political over Bahrain controversy" Grandprix.com
16. "the controversial race" formula-one.speedtv.com
17. "Human rights controversy ahead of Bahrain Grand Prix" 3 News
18. "the controversial Formula One race" CNN
19. "dragged F1 bosses into controversy for a second year in a row" Sky News
20. "the controversial Bahrain Grand Prix in April" Guardian
21. "the most controversial race of the year." Guardian
22. "a controversial race" Al Jazeera

Oops I forgot to sign last time. The above edit was made by me on 13:10, 27 April 2013 Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the idea that the race was controversial - just that it was less controversial than in previous years, but by outlining the controversy in the article lead, it is implying that the controversy in 2013 was greater than it actually was.

Given that the race is supported by the government and the protests are against the government, I feel that adding excess weight to the issue violates WP:NPOV bbecause it is trying to draw attention to the protesters' cause. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

But why should anyone here really care what you feel, when it so obviously goes against what the sources so clearly show - that the protests over the 2013 race remained a significant aspect of the story. As such, they should be mentioned in the introduction. It is you who is violating NPOV by trying to present the race on Wikipedia in a different way to how sources do. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Prisonermonkeys, your edit summary on 07:18, 23 April 2013 contradicts what you're saying now (that the 2013 race was controversial).‎ I agree that the controversy in 2013 was less than in the previous two years, but back then it was so significant that it probably deserved a whole paragraph or more in lead. That's more than a single line isn't it? We're not asking for that now. We're simply saying that since protests (including anti-F1 protests) were widely reported by reliable sources covering the 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix, then Wikipedia should reflect that. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

By all means, if you can show/prove that the reporting of protests in reliable sources covering the 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix was so shallow and weak that it was merely a "minority view", then go ahead. I'm ready to listen to and conciser what you have to say assuming it is backed up by reliable sources. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Because mentioning the controversy in the article lead implies that the protests - the source of the controversy - were a dominant issue during the race. If 2013 was the only time the protests had taken place alongside the race, then I could understand its inclusion in the lead. However, the protests were not as predominant in 2013 when compared to 2011 and 2012, and so I feel that mentioning the controversy in the article lead overstates the importance and the impact of the protests. I'm not denying that there was controversy - I'm just disputing the idea that it was the most significant issue surrounding the race, and that it would be more appropriate to cover the issue elsewhere on the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And for the second time of asking, when your view completely contradicts the coverage in reliable sources, why should anyone care what you feel? You can't even give a consistent argument - is the opening only supposed to mention significant aspects, or the "most significant" ones? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources. Your feelings are not relevant here. Per WP:weight "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." (my emphasis). Per WP:lead "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." (my emphasis again). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

The article history sure shows edit warring. Let's discuss things here on the talk page instead of reverts. If we can't agree, then we can always go to Dispute resolution noticeboard. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Image

I've added an image to the article on 20:04, 21 April 2013, but Prisonermonkeys removed it on 02:19, 22 April 2013‎ with edit summary "remove over-sized image". He also said on talk page that he removed the image because "It was simply far too big, dominated the section of the page it was included on, and appeared to have been included simply to draw attention to the protesters' point of view."[22] I told him that image can be re-sized,[23] then added it back to the article with smaller size (150 px instead of the default 220 px thumb) [24]. He removed it again saying it "adds undue weight" [25]. Then he mentioned the on the talk page that it add undue weight, because the section was only 2 lines long [26].

The images available are File:Anti-F1 protester.JPG and File:Anti-F1 protester (2).JPG. I want one of them inserted into the article, especially that the protest section is now a 4-line paragraph. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph is still too short - the image puts undue weight on the issue, making the protests out to be of the same scale as they were in 2011 and 2012, when they clearly weren't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep just stating this nonsense as if it was remotely true? Where is it stated anywhere that using an image to illustrate text, gives it undue weight? Where is it written anywhere that there must be x lines of prose before an image can be used to illustrate what's being written about? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually find the image too large, 150 px would do fine. And to be fair WP:Weight mentions that "This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well" (my emphasis). But I do not agree with Prisonermonkeys that this adds undue weight to protests. Maybe if it was two+ images, then yes. The funny part is this same guy in the first image was also photographed by a number of news agencies and I've seen in his images in two articles (will search for them). You know, I would like to expand the protests section more to include for instance the objections from Damon Hill and some British MPs, but I'm reluctant to do so, because I think it might be removed and/or edit-warred over. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha! [27] [28]. The first is a Reuters image indeed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there was no objection, I've boldly re-sized the image. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

DRN comments

I posted my thoughts at the DRN section Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2013_Bahrain_Grand_Prix. Please continue any discussion there, not here. --Noleander (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130401073302/http://www.formula1.com:80/races/in_detail/bahrain_896/circuit_diagram.html to http://www.formula1.com/races/in_detail/bahrain_896/circuit_diagram.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130208022708/http://www.fia.com:80/championship/formula-1-world-championship/2013/calendar to http://www.fia.com/championship/formula-1-world-championship/2013/calendar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130423092334/http://www.formula1.com:80/results/season/2013/896/7208/ to http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2013/896/7208/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130429041517/http://www.euronews.com:80/sport/1931808-bahrain-looks-long-term-with-f1-race/ to http://www.euronews.com/sport/1931808-bahrain-looks-long-term-with-f1-race/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)