Talk:2022 British Grand Prix

Protesters in race summary
Relevance to the race is minimal. They weren’t shown on broadcast for good reason.

I would like to have them omitted from the article. 109.144.216.236 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * They weren't shown on the broadcast to discourage others from tring it. By not showing them on camera, the protest had minimal effect. If they were on camera, the protest would be a major success, and encourage others to try the same. SSSB (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If it were a major success if it were in the broadcast, then why are we “broadcasting” it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:340E:E200:3DE2:975A:C479:990D (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Because we are an encylopedia, where as the race broadcast is a race broadcast. Their role is too provide TV images of the race, and ours is to provide encylopedic content. It is not relevant to the race broadcast, but it isn't relevant in an encylopdic entry on the event (because it is a security breach). Also, (not that's relevant) our mentioning the protest here doesn't make it any more successful, as we aren't highlighting the group or cause, only that it happened. SSSB (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the others who have commented here, that it should be minimal, but not nil, coverage. There is no need to wade into the ins and outs of the group and the cause. There is no need for 'both siding' this, by going so and so and so and so support them and such and such and such and such don't support them. That is news reporting and being opinionated. Why are those people selected for their opinion and not others, for example?
 * There is just a need to be bare-bones factual. People entered the track, sat down, and got arrested. That is the total significance. If it is believed it warrants more coverage then go wild and have a separate article. This though is an article on the race it is not an article on 7 people sitting on the Wellington Straight where the race was stopped due to a crash before the race even got to them. It doesn't need any more. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the level of detail that we see at 2003 British Grand Prix. But, what is relevant is who they entered the track and why, particularly given the amount of coverage of the protest in the news. A failure to do so is intentionally misleading, as we are suggesting there was no motive for the crime. The article currently says "that the individuals should not have put themselves at risk of physical harm during the race.", we should be mentioning that they put themselves, drivers and official at risk (not just themselves). This is minimal coverage, and is not "ins and outs of the group", or "both siding". I suggest:
 * At the start, seven members of the group Just Stop Oil entered the track and sat on the Wellington Straight. The race had been red-flagged due to the first corner incident before cars reached the Wellington Straight. All of the individuals were removed from the track and arrested. The protest was condemend for being "irreponsible and dangerous", and for putting the lives of drivers, support staff and themselves at risk. SSSB (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does the name of the organiser of the protest need to be in the article? also, condemned as irresponsible and dangerous by who? additionally, the reasons they entered and who they are are 100% irrelevant to the article and the Race. As I have said if you want to go into detail be my guest and write an article on but leave this article and the race sections about the race and nothing else. The British Grans Prix of 2003 is different as that individual actually interfered with the race. These people did not interfere with the race due to the corner one crash. They had no impact at all on the race. Let me fix it for you At the start, seven individuals entered the track and sat on the Wellington Straight. The race had been red-flagged due to the first corner incident before cars reached the Wellington Straight. All of the individuals were removed from the track and arrested. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Condemened as irresponsible and dangerous by Domilicani. the reasons they entered and who they are are 100% irrelevant to the article and the Race. - no, they aren't. Those facts are just as relevant as the fact there was a track invasion at all. If your arguement is They had no impact at all on the race. then why mention it at all. The level of information you suggest is so minimal, that it might it as well not be mentioned at all (which I am actully perfectly fine with). Choosing to mention that people invaded the track, but without mentioning the group, comes across as an attempt at WP:CENSORSHIP as there is no real reason to not include those 7 words: "members of the group Just Stop Oil". SSSB (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You hit the nail on the head, their involvement regarding the British Grand Prix was so minimal that it may just as well not be mentioned beyond what it is minimal. I wholly agree with you there. Adding opinion pieces from driver x and official y and reporter z is not needed in any way. The selection of those sources is POV and this is not a news site. Simply generating a bit of next-day news coverage and listing some group's cause does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia as WP:NOTNEWS applies. As I have repeated many times if you believe this warrants inclusion on Wikipedia go wild on a separate article, though leave the Formula One article focused on the Forumal One. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As you agree that the level of detail is so low that it's meaningless to mention it at all, I've removed it. SSSB (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)