Talk:2015 Monaco Grand Prix

Hamilton
Some IPs are adding content on Mercedes' decision to pit Hamilton, with that action directly costing him the victory.

THIS CAN NOT BE ADDED!

The simple truth is that, while he had a ~20 second advantage, it is not on us, editors of an encyclopedia, to declare that he would have won. Any source used to support his potential victory is speculative — it cannot be proven that he would have held his lead. Whether a crash, a breakdown, or a lead change after the safety car period had Hamilton not pitted... all of it is speculative.

DO NOT ADD THAT HAMILTON WOULD HAVE WON THE RACE! Twirlypen (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do believe we can add information to this sense as long as we note its speculative nature. Such as quoting a source saying "a race he was likely have won". Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * well, apart from the crash it's about the only notabele thing that happened in this race. You can count on it that EVERY future reference to this race will focus on it. So IMO the current version of the article definitely understates this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.138.126 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No. This is an encyclopedia. We do not report on speculation. We do not write about what would have happened if Mitt Romney won the 2012 US Presidential Election. We do not write about how many more people may have died in 9/11 had it happened an hour or two later. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to detail what happened, not what would have or might have happened. Hamilton's victory, however likely, cannot be reliably proven. Twirlypen (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If I may have my say, what next? Why don't we claim that Ayrton Senna would have beaten every record in the book and won 8 World Championships. Leave it factual and concise on occurred events and circumstances only.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please check if you are satisfied with how I phrased it in the post-race section. I made it quite clear that it is a third-party opinion. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I like it. It accurately states that the decision to pit cost Hamilton the lead, without definitively stating that he was certain to win. There are a handful of other "what-ifs" that could have happened between the restart and the end of the race that potentially would cost a victory regardless of the decision to pit - a collision, puncture, getting passed, breakdown, tyre trouble (as Hamilton eluded to in his radio communication), just to name a few scenarios.
 * Basically, saying the decision to pit cost Hamilton the victory would be inaccurate in itself, because ultimately it was Verstappen misjudging his braking point and crashing that brought out the safety car which then led to the decision to pit. Twirlypen (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Twirlypen, aren't we supposed to report what reliable sources report? Our sources are telling us that "the decision to pit cost Hamilton the victory".  For example, Andrew Benson, Chief F1 writer in Monaco for BBC.com, wrote "Mercedes apologised to Lewis Hamilton for what they admitted was the strategic error that cost him victory in the Monaco Grand Prix."  If the decision to pit didn't cost Hamilton the victory, then why did Toto Wolff and Niki Lauda bother apologising to him, in public even?  I think we do indeed report on speculation, when in a case like this, the speculation is expert speculation and unanimous.  You seem to be overlooking the fact that Monaco is a very tight circuit that makes overtaking nearly impossible, so, if you have a 25.7 second lead with 14 laps to go, it is almost a certainty that you will cross the finish line first.  We need to add, to the lead, the fact that Lewis Hamilton was cruising to almost certain victory when the Mercedes team blunder occurred.   108.28.105.194 (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even Mercedes can't override this. He could have been 7 laps ahead on the restart but no one can say that he would or wouldn't have won. It's not difficult to understand. Speculation and crystal balling don't belong in an encyclopedia. Twirlypen (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Twirlypen, aren't we supposed to report what reliable sources report? Mercedes can't override what?  Expert opinion is that he would have won.  It's not difficult to understand.  We report what expert sources reported in reliable sources tell us.   108.28.105.194 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See above. Expert opinions also agree that Senna would have broken all records and won 8 titles had he not died. Mercedes saying he would have won is simply a team supporting their driver. This is getting ridiculous. The only factual, reliably sourced outcome is that the pit move cost him first place. Anything beyond that is speculative and crystal, regardless of any expert status of someone saying what they think would have happened. Twirlypen (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Article is much better now, with appropriate attention going to the event that determined the final outcome more than any other. Whether it is explicitly stated that "Hamilton would have won" or not, is mostly irrelevant. But until yesterday, someone reading the artikle would have grotten away with a very skewed impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.138.126 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Race details in the lead
Tricky business. While it is true that 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix features race details in the lead section, one might argue that those are "historically significant" since it decided the title, which the events here might not. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one here putting it up for debate instead of edit-warring it back and forth? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick review of Grand Prix articles with Featured Article status, e.g. 2008 Brazil, 2008 Hungary, 1994 San Marino, as listed on the Wikiproject F1 page, indicates that either race details or deaths and injuries are in the lead of every article. Twirlypen seems to be marching to the beat of a different drummer.  As I'm not good at dealing with editors who have article ownership issues, I'll leave you to "debate" with Twirlypen, Zwerg Nase.  Good luck!   108.28.105.194 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will make a suggestion for a lead later tonight, trying to bring both views together. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, I'd consider assuming good faith when having a discussion with an editor you don't agree with, especially when you start tossing around ownership accusations. If you'd like to instead present a case as to why a misjudgement by Mercedes costing Hamilton the lead is historically significant (as in, why it would be lead content worthy years from now), I will gladly listen and consider your opinions and work with you to come to a concensus. However, I will NOT get drawn into a pissing match.
 * I don't see this being so significant in the future, so why don't we go back and add how mid-race leaders lost the lead in every race article lead?? 2008 Brazil decided a championship, and 1994 San Marino was obviously overshadowed by the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger. 2008 Hungary lead is way too excessively detailed for a race that has no historical value aside from being Kovalainen's first victory. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of what's in the lead there could be removed entirely as it's discussed later in the article and it'd still retain its FA status. Twirlypen (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Further, regarding your revision summary, I used injuries/deaths as an example. A first win (such as Vettel's win with a Toro Rosso [also the team's first and only win {also setting a record for youngest winner}] in 2008 Italy), a 50th pole (such as Vettel in 2013 Italy [which for some reason has since been deleted]), or any kind of rare occurrence (such as a racing ending with a red flag as in 1984 Monaco or 2014 Japan) are all historically significant. If you're not sure, either add it per WP:BOLD and see if there are any objections, (which there obviously are in this case) and then form a concensus if there are any, or start a discussion on the talk page to get opinions from other editors. Twirlypen (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess that is because it was Vettel's 40th, not 50th pole. Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right. It was Red Bull's 50th, not Vettel's. Twirlypen (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)