Talk:Jessica Dubroff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Question 2 Removed from article 3 Jessica as pilot or future record holder 4 The adjective 'tragic' 5 Fact tag

[edit] Question

who is jessica dubroff

Maybe you could read the article this is attached to?--211.29.198.148 05:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article

Book info needs formatting:

Book Title: Will You All Rise ~ 1 of 7 ~ for Jess, Joe & Lloyd
Book Sub-Title: For Seven Year Old Pilots, For Flight Instructors who give  
their all, For Father~Daughter Bonds, For the Magnificence of All Children 
Everywhere.

Please add it back to the article when it has been formatted. --Viriditas | Talk 14:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why was the student pilot description removed? Even if you don't like her (and I didn't), there's no denying she was a student pilot. She could even log the time as dual. There aren't any age restrictions on receiving dual training, just on receiving her medical (and therefore soloing). —Cleared as filed. 12:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad you asked, I was just on my way back here to address this. I changed it to "girl" until I could do some research on the technically accurate term for her. Here is my reasoning:

Pilot: The dictionary term for Pilot is "One who operates or is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight." She was a pilot, but we probably wouldn't call her that since "pilot" is a specific FAA certification for which she didn't qualify.

Student Pilot: Sure, anyone can take one lesson and fit the common-sense definition of a student pilot. However, "student pilot" is also a specific FAA certification that she didn't qualify for. Even though she was a student of piloting, this term can lead to confusion with the student pilot certificate.

After digging around a bit, I think "pilot trainee" would be the best term to use. It satisfies both the common-sense and FAA definition, and is consistent with her linked NTSB report which is careful to avoid calling her a "student pilot" and even has a footnote to that effect. Mexcellent 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think "pilot trainee" is the least confusing for this situation. —Cleared as filed. 14:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Aviatrix" is the word you're looking for to substitute "girl," but FAA certification or not, it's pretty clear that she was a pilot. I mean, that's all she did for her whole life right up to the end all of her media coverage is all directly related to the fact that she was flying aircraft. Revert it, if you like, I don't waste my time on edit wars, but I think this makes for more positive language. -- Randall00 ^Talk 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just remove it without even saying anything, I guess. -- Randall00 ^Talk 23:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WHOEVER keeps messing this page up with uncalled for comments will be BANNED. Have some respect for this little girl!

[edit] Jessica as pilot or future record holder

Jessica was a passenger, not a pilot, as she was uncertified and under age to be pilot in command, and the legal pilot in command for the flight was the instructor. Also she was not manipulating the controls during the accident flight, according to the NTSB report. So had the flight been successfully completed, she would not have broken any piloting record, and we have no reliable source telling us otherwise. Crum375 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to post into this (or any) page, please observe civility rules and assume good faith. Posting personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be reverted on sight, per WP policy. Thanks, Crum375 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The adjective 'tragic'

There is no known source that disputes the fact that her death was 'tragic'. In many ways, this tragedy is a classic case of the dictionary definition of the word. The AOPA reference cited in the article is using it. When there is a clear and undisputed support for an adjective, I believe WP can use it. Once there is any dispute, then I agree WP cannot take sides, although the majority view should be given proper weight etc. In this case I see it as totally uncontroversial and well sourced that it was 'tragic' and hence WP can clearly state so. Crum375 13:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be uncontroversial that some individuals are beautiful, but beauty, like tragedy, is still a subjective judgement. We can say that such and such a source has passed such a judgment, but it's not our place to endorse it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree in the case of the adjective 'beautiful' that it is in the eye of the beholder, hence the beholder should be specifically attributed. I think 'tragic' is generally less controversial, and is certainly not controversial in this particular case. WP is all about stating 'facts', per reliable sources. WP facts are not necessarily truths - only views held by their sources, and when they are uncontroversial (i.e. in total agreement), WP generally calls a spade a spade, without the direct and immediate attribution. In this case, of an uncontroversial view held by multiple reliable sources, I think the narrative is improved by using the adjective and supplying a subsequent source as a reference. It boils down to ease of reading and style: when a fact (as defined by WP) is uncontroversial, it is not necessary to attribute it directly; supplying a reliable source for it will do, and the narrative will be easier to follow. Crum375 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We attribute views to sources, we don't make them our own. Our facts are supposed to be not only true, but also verifiable. You can't source the tragic nature of an event, because what happens when someone disagrees? If I say it wasn't a tragedy, am I wrong? No, because tragedy is subjective. The objective nature of wikipedia means that all its facts ought to be truths, not mere views. That a view exists is a verifiable fact, but the truth of a subjective view is not. If an alternate judgement can be made from the same facts, wikipedia shouldn't be taking a stance. We don't say Stalin or Hitler or Ghengis Khan or even Lucifer was evil, regardless of how uncontroversial that may be, only that they are seen as such, because one can disagree with an event being good, evil, beautiful, or tragic, and still be perfectly correct, while the fact that a source holds a view is objectively verifiable and only has one truth state.

Saying that wikipedia's content isn't supposed to be necessarily true is completely and totally wrong. The standard is verifiability, not truth, to set a higher bar, not a lower one. Subjective things are inherently violations of WP:NPOV, so we just let the facts speak for themselves. Don't tell people it was a tragedy, or that the Mona Lisa was the greatest painting of all time. Cite a source that does, and say the source judged it so, or let them make that judgment for themselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are missing my point. I am not saying we can willy-nilly spew unsupported 'facts'. I think anything and everything we say must be well supported by reliable sources, so that is not an issue. The only issue is that of style, of whether we need to say:

"...CNN, ABC, FOX and others who monitored her flight every day for the duration of her trip, reporting each time she landed or took off, until the tragic ending of her 'Sea to Shining Sea Flight.'", with the appropriate sources listed below, vs.:

"...CNN, ABC, FOX and others who monitored her flight every day for the duration of her trip, reporting each time she landed or took off, until the tragic[1] ending of her 'Sea to Shining Sea Flight.'"; or even:

"...CNN, ABC, FOX and others who monitored her flight every day for the duration of her trip, reporting each time she landed or took off, until what some sources called "the tragic ending" of her 'Sea to Shining Sea Flight.'[2]"

IMO, for something so uncontroversial the sourcing of the adjective 'tragic' is cumbersome and detracts from the narrative flow. There is a WP rule not to overburden a paragraph with sources and footnotes, especially for non-controversies. The bottom line though is style, not basic policy as you make it sound. We all agree that we can't invent our own WP views on things and we need reliable sources - the question is only how to present the sources while making the article easy to read. Crum375 17:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The first two are subjective, the third is a bit weasely but acceptable. What's wrong with the way I phrased it, that simply excised the subjective term altogether? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

When a little girl who tries to be a pilot, sets lofy goals, becomes a media darling, is under intense media scrutiny, suddenly crashes and dies, her demise is tragic almost by the definition of the word. In this case we have it as 'tragic' on the record, from multiple sources and undisputed. By omitting the word, we make the article colder, less interesting. Part of our mission at WP is to produce interesting and readable articles, not only minimal facts. I see no reason to excise the word as it is well sourced and it adds value to the article, and hence to WP as a whole. Crum375 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

When a man malevolently murders a dozen people in cold blood it's almost by definition evil, but we don't call anyone evil in wikipedia, nor do we call charity good. I don't think there is any removal of facts attached to omitting a single, subjective adjective, nor does it harm the readability of the article in any way. If anything, including subjective description undermines Wikipedia for me by turning a quality documentation of facts into a piece of sentimental pap. If the facts are tragic, or amazing, they should speak for themselves. We don't need to tell the readers that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think 'tragic', well sourced and uncontrovesial, is much less faceted than 'good', 'bad', 'evil', etc. I can see how a bad event can lead to good, and vice versa, and how different colored glasses can see things in a different light. In this case I think 'tragedy', regardless of your interpretation of the event, is fairly innocuous and unambiguous. But I have changed it to 'abrupt' for now, as I do agree in principle that we should strive to be as unemotional as possible and 'tragic' does connote an emotion. Crum375 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag

I added the fact tag to this line: "The accident, and its associated publicity, led to Federal legislation that prohibits anyone who does not hold at least a private pilot certificate and a current medical certificate from being allowed to manipulate the controls of an aircraft during any record attempt, aeronautical competition, or aeronautical feat." I have heard this too, but have been unable to verify this, and unless someone else can, it should be removed. Dhaluza 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up a little by moving the refs from the EL section to inline. Crum375 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that. The other inline refs should be moved around a bit, though. Dhaluza 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move the refs. We also need to find the 'rain' quote ref - the news archives all require payment unfortunately. Crum375 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)