# Talk:Jules Bianchi

Please do not insert rumors or speculation about Bianchi's status on the talk page or in the article. At this point, all that can be confirmed from reliably-sourced reporting is that he had a very serious accident and has been taken to hospital unconscious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest information I have heard or read is that he's currently undergoing emergency surgery for a serious head injury with plans to go direct to ICU after. (I'm not certain if that is specifically more serious than an ordinary surgery, but the article does specifically mention it as if it is a change in procedure.) This article is where I'm getting that info from;  http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/05/f1-driver-bianchi-critical-after-crash UnsanctionedStyle (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't find a good source for it, but thought I'd still share. Around 10am GMT they announced there would be no more updates given for 24 hours. GameLegend (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

result of the CT scan: severe head injury: https://twitter.com/BaronVonClutch/status/518728030370684928/photo/1 Sennen Goroshi !  (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Can someone change this line "Bianchi's crash represented the first accident that resulted in major injury during a Formula One weekend since the head injuries suffered by Felipe Massa while qualifying for the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix." to "Bianchi's crash represented the first accident that resulted in major injury to a driver during a Formula One weekend since the head injuries suffered by Felipe Massa while qualifying for the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix." As it is currently listed is not strictly true, a marshal was killed during the recovery of a Sauber during the 2013 Canadian Grand Prix.[1] InfiniteRequiem (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Very sound suggestion above. Done! (couldn't you edit yourself?!) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder to all; WP:BLP will still apply to this article for a week or two, as it specifically covers those who are recently deceased, too.  rdfox 76 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Newbie query - can article be locked? Too many first-time contributors and unregistered users making improper edits. Me and ZappaOMati are only ones holding the fort... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've sent a request to WP:RPP. Zappa24Mati 03:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No, he died Saturday morning in France. Which would make it the 18th.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adevarts (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC) 

Read the source. On Saturday morning, his family said that he died. And if you read their statement, which as I said, was made on Saturday morning, which is the 18th:

Last night is the 17th. Zappa24Mati 03:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

My new section needs rewording... but will hopefully stop people changing the sad passing on the 17th. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The section 2014 Suzuka accident begins "In the first instance, Bianchi was medically attended to at the crash site before being transported by ambulance..."
The words "In the first instance" are superfluous, and so I removed them. However, I have been reverted, with an edit summary of "Relevant because he was subsequently hospitalized to France". This is not the case, because the time line is readily apparent from the way the rest of the paragraph is written. Such verbosity is unhelpful to our readers, and should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted with a poor explanation, sorry. It is common practice for race drivers to be stabilized on track and then immediately taken by ambulance to the medical centre or by helicopter elsewhere. In this case, "in the first instance", not only was Bianchi treated on the race track, he could then not be airlifted due to the weather and continued to be treated on route by ambulance to a Japanese hospital. "In the second instance", he was relocated and treated in France. Why lose context for the sake of arguable prose? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The prose is inarguably poor; and no context is lost with removal of the phrase to which I refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Find other non-F1 articles to edit with your prose? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the correct heading markup, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings, which says "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Instead of picking on trivial matters, lookup. There is discussion to redo those section. You are not contributing to anything other than further unecessary endless edits. The main heading is "Suzuka accident" CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Accessibility is not a "trivial matter". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
[EC] I have now been reverted, with the most unacceptable, and false, edit summary "You did not author the article nor previously contribute to it. Go contribute elsewhere?". I suggest a reading of WP:OWN is on order. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is dismissing accessability or claiming ownership. You are just not contributing to minimising undue edits given the above discussion in this very Talk page. If you prefer that para numbering, leave it since it will disappear in due course as those sections will be redone (have you read above or not?) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure, given your recent comments here and in the section above, and repeated reversion of edits to the article, that people will understand if I decide not to defer to your judgement of which edits are "undue". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
And your attempt to cause a dispute because you didn't get your way does not faze me. In saying that, I was wrong in referring to a discussion in this very Talk page. It is actually in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Jules Bianchi's article, which you may wanna consult as well. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me as though changing the bolded headers to actual section headers isn't a huge deal, and will help people using screen readers read the article. I don't really understand what the problem is here. CtrlXctrlV can you explain what's wrong with changing them? agtx 16:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I concur, so I reinstated the section headers. CtrlXctrlV, you need to drop your bullying attitude towards editors who make edits you don't like. Comments like "Go find another article to edit" are utterly unacceptable and you will be referred to the administrators if you persist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing), thanks four your input. On the redundant words, as pointed out by the other editor we are currently discussing an imminent rewrite here. So discussing any changes here will be moot anyway. You're welcome to weigh in your opinion there. Tvx1 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem Agtx, in fact I made that edit myself previously. I even invited Pigsonthewing to restore the numbering but after pointing out that further edits will be futile given those whole sections will undergo a rewrite, as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Jules Bianchi's article. I thought WP:BLP applies yet all that Pigsonthewing has done is cause more (avoidable, at this time) edits. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Tvx1 before you accuse anyone of bullying, kindly recall or check through the history to see that I established each of those indexed sub-sections that you have since proposed to cut back (and which I largely support).  With: (i) that in mind; (ii) WP:BLP in place; (iii) the discussion you initiated here, it was not a matter of preference (or bullying) on my part, but one of utility of Pigsonthewing's edits at a time of lots of edits by all and sundries. And, again, I did not oppose to those sub-sections being reestablished either, as is evident from the comments above (after pointing out your discussion, which I envisage will result in each sub-section being dropped or changed substantially). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
If you didn't oppose them, then why did you revert Pigsonthewing instating them? And nevertheless it was completely inappropriate to tell another editor to "go edit other non f1-articles" (i.e. stay away from of F1 articles). Tvx1 17:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Read the context (incl. time stamps) and how it escalated before selectively jumping to conclusions. Thanks. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I did read the context and the timestamps, but if you must: Pigsonthewing replaces bold headers by actual section headers per MOS, you revert, Pigsonthewing reinstates correct section headers per MOS, Pigsonthewing initiates discussion on this matter on this talk page, you revert the headings in the article again, after all of that more discussion continues here. None of this  shows you agreeing to use the correct section headings, let alone invite Pigsonthewing to restore them. An certainly none of this justifies you telling him to "sod off".
Don't really understand why you refer to BLP above. BLP doesn't mean edits to articles should be minimised or avoided. Only problematic edits about living and perhaps recently deceased people should be avoided, meaning with content that is poorly sourced, biased or whatever else that makes it a problem, particularly content that includes negative material. The fact that an article is likely to be substantially rewritten may mean fixing formatting problems isn't so important, but it doesn't mean people aren't welcome to do so if they desire. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on that aspect Nil Einne :) it was just not to add to the many edits happening at the moment, in the context of imminent further changes and this whole thing starting due to rejecting the other user's changes for the sake of prose. Makes a difference when things are explained properly and sensibly, without escalation as caused by the other user also subjecting this page to a dispute (heavy-handed). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You know, your reverts did unnecessarily add to the edits too. There would have been much less if you would have just left Pigsonthewing's initial edit alone. That the section will be rewritten in the future does not mean we should leave it inaccessible for some until that has happened. So yes, his edit was constructive. Tvx1 18:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding to these edits too Tvx1, unhelpfully keeping the fire alive I don't know for what purpose. In saying that, great use of "initially" instead of "in the first instance", which Pigsonthewing could have thought of himself before or instead of causing a trivial argument. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in team reaction, In addition, other teams introduced their own to the other Twitter hashtag, makes no sense. Can somebody who knows what the other teams did reword it appropriately?  Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It was unreferenced trivia too, so deleted. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In the lead, it currently features Bianchi as a Ferrari test driver. Is this wise? While he was the first member of their driver academy (http://www.foxsportsasia.com/editorial/news/detail/item63432/), this implies he actively took part in Ferrari Grand Prix sessions. It's a very minute distinction that should/could be explained in detail later in the article. Twirlypen (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I edited to say he was just an Academy member. Agree? And somewhat related to your point... yesterday I deleted an edit adding Force India to the list of teams in the infobox. Can someone please explain what's the criteria for those listings? Is it just the teams a driver has raced for or do they also cover teams tested for? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
For infobox purposes, it's strictly teams he has been entered in races for. If it's 0 races (0 starts), then no. Anything else though, then yes. As such, his only Formula One team was Marussia. For comparison, Pascal Wehrlein has tested for both Force India and Mercedes, but he is not credited as being a F1 GP driver. Twirlypen (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Twirlypen :) glad that revert was correct then... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely! It was just the wording in the lead before was borderline misleading regarding his Ferrari status. I knew what was trying to be said, but being this is a Main Page article at the moment, it needed immediate clarification. Twirlypen (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bianchi was the first Formula One driver in over 21 years to die as a result of an F1 racing accident since Ayrton Senna’s death at the May 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.
It was not racing, it happened under the safety car?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.82.158.245 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC) 

The accident happened during an F1 race. I think most people would therefore consider "F1 racing accident" to be a suitable description. DH85868993 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Curious why there is no mention of the race marshalls waving a green flag at the accident location. Was this not discovered during the FIA investigation? (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3juvxDX39Q?t=1m)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.179.229 (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC) 

Hmm, I don't think the article discusses the cause of the accident or the results of the inquiry sufficiently to specifically mention this detail. Unless you can find a secondary source which covers the events and inquiry in as much detail as this article and this secondary source includes the green flag situation in their analysis I dont think we should include. But this is just my initial thoughts on if this should be included and I'm interested to hear what other editors think.SSSB (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed two inappropriate cats, 'Racing drivers who died while racing' and 'Sport deaths in Japan', with commentary in the edit summary.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I am now somewhat-relieved to find it was a 2015 IP change (Ukrainian - bizarre) but a shame it was carried through to now.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reintroduced the death while racing category, as this category is appropriate for Bianchi. That medical intervention postponed his death to months later doesn't mean that his death wasn't directly caused by an incident while he was racing. Categorization of articles might be treated by some editors as an end in itself, but it isn't. We do it to help our readers navigate between articles on similar topics. As the category lead section itself puts it, the category also "includes drivers ... who were not killed immediately but succumbed to their injuries some time later." Pyrope 10:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the wording - it was changed - seemingly unilaterally -  by DH85868993 in this 2013 change. It seems to be open-ended that whomever can consider the variable time element as non-controversial - where is the line to be drawn? I didn't look - my bad - but the motorcycle equivalents Rider deaths in motorcycle racing and Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series make no such qualification/allowance, and an IP has just added a 'death whilst racing' even though it was 4/5 days later.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Rocknrollmancer: I updated the category description in 2013 to match its contents, noting that the category contained (and still contains) drivers such as Stuart Lewis-Evans and Ronnie Peterson, who died some time after their accidents. DH85868993 (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, Rocknrollmancer, but I don't see the problem with what we have now. So long as the subject's death was a direct consequence of their racing activities, they go into the category. As you note, the problem is one of drawing a line. Does a driver have to have died instantly, on impact, to be included? If not, how long after the accident do they have to die? For Roger Williamson, his death was probably only a few minutes after the accident, but he wasn't actively racing at the instant he died so does he go in? Logic would seem to say 'of course', but then how long can a driver hold on? Dick Seaman and Ayrton Senna died in hospital a few hours later, while Carel Godin de Beaufort and the two that DH85868993 mentioned were in hospital for quite a bit longer. Bianchi would have died at the track in Seaman's day, but modern medicine kept him alive for months. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was the racing that killed him. You can argue back and forth about Maria de Villota, and I note that she is not included in this category, bit hers is the only high profile case, I can think of, of a death caused by a motorsport accident that occured after the victim had apparently returned to normal life. Pyrope 15:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

According to German speedweek, the transport by ambulance was for medical reasons:
Inzwischen ist auch klar: Der Rettungs-Heli hätte sehr wohl fliegen können (die Sicht dazu war gut genug), aus medizinischen Gründen wurde jedoch ein Transport per Ambulanz bevorzugt.
[2]https://www.speedweek.com/formel1/news/64547/Suzuka-GP-Wie-schwer-ist-Jules-Bianchi-verletzt.html
Translated via deepl:
It is now also clear that the rescue helicopter could very well have flown (visibility was good enough), but for medical reasons transport by ambulance was preferred. 2001:16B8:CBD4:D600:28E7:E93B:49D0:3251 (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)