Talk:Santino Ferrucci

Edit war Re: Disruptive edits by a blocked user
I honestly had no idea I was walking into an edit war repeating an edit by a blocked user from a week ago when I made this edit. My fault for not checking history first and as such, I will initiate a discussion. Pinging involved editors: (not pinging the blocked editor at the moment).

Why is there a need to have the information twice? I understand the blocked guy was removing it from both places, but the only thing that was in the Personal Life section that wasn't in the F2 section was the Trump thing, which can always be added to the F2 section; absolutely no oppostion from me here. But per NPOV/BLP policies there is no need to have two different sections on the same information. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree having it in more than one spot doesn't seem WP:DUEWEIGHT of that material so no objections to your removal. I mostly had reverted a removal of effectively, it seems, the F2 section based on the edit summary plus removal of content with decent looking sources. The Trump factlet could be added back in but probably not in a revived controversy section. I won't say I've evaluated it in detail but seems fine to me at this point. Skynxnex (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe there's an essay or guideline or something on "Controversy" sections in BLPs but can't for the life of me remember what the link is. But I was directed here after a discussion with Regal on my talk page about the FIA license in the infobox and was surprised to see one sitting there (though obviously not surprised by its contents having been familiar with the story when it was breaking haha) &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be thinking of this essay WP:Criticism. Skynxnex (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's it or not, but, "[n]o undue weight should be given to criticism." pretty much covers where I was coming from with my edit. Thanks. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My choice to restore some content was more of an impulse than an attempt to participate in a war.
 * Personally, I see little reason for the information to be included twice. As far as the political sponsorship goes, IIRC it was in NASCAR. Is a sponsorship being declined for political reasons a noteworthy event, or is it a matter of general policy in that series that political sponsorships are not allowed? If it is the latter, than I don't really see that the content is relevant to this article.
 * RegalZ8790 (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The request to run the "MAGA" slogan on the car happened while Ferrucci was driving in Formula 2 in 2018 and happened amongst a bunch of other events which got him in the headlines in racing publications that cover the Formula 1 ladder. I understand the impulse to revert a disruptive editor and it certainly falls under the exceptions of the edit warring policy, so I've struck the insinuations that a war went on. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, looking at it in more detail, it's not even that well sourced. it's sourced by a couple of hit pieces in The Drive and RaceFans.net and a passing mention in ESPN. Probably good for a brief passing mention in the article at best, and certainly not within any context to why he was fired, since it was the team that put in the request to the FIA. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)