Talk:Jessica Dubroff

Question
who is jessica dubroff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.136.198 (talk)  14:36, September 18, 2004


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

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)

Vandalism
WHOEVER keeps messing this page up with uncalled for comments will be BANNED. Have some respect for this little girl! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.136.81 (talk) 23:02, March 5, 2006

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)

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 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.'"
 * 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)

Look, you've gone on for almost 8 paragraphs about it arguing with people. Clearly it's controversial or no one would have had an issue with it. As Night Gyr said, facts should speak for themselves, and they do. 75.157.55.2 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

I'm going to add this to the article tomorrow
Jessica Dubroff, the precocious 7-year-old who died Thursday while trying to set a new cross-country flying record, was growing up in a family that only recently emerged from serious financial hardship. [removed copy-vio]

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?year=1996&month=04&day=14&article=NEWS15677.dtl#ixzz0jzJ3JSyg--99.177.250.140 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I will re-write it so it is not plagiarized.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be careful about copyright violation. Crum375 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Crum375. I haven't gotten around to doing this yet but when I do have time I will read the SFGate article and put it in my own words so I do not plagiarize it or mess up copyright.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox - Add Famous Flight
Since the Infobox/aviator is used in this article, it might be good to include the entry for f-flights= and reference "Sea to Shining Sea" flight. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comma usage when a state name follows a city name; Style or Grammar question
(Crum375, you made me think about a number of situations that I had previously not considered an alternate position. For that I thank you. I bring this up here simply to help me understand if I should stop making this edit to articles in which I find this situation. If it is a matter of style and not grammar, I do not want to force my will on other editors. I sincerely hope this does not come across as offensive or combative. Please let me know if that is the case. Also if I have misrepresented your position below feel free to make any necessary additions or changes.)

As Crum375 and I went through the GAR process, we agreed to disagree on one particular point: whether to make a change on comma usage when a city and state name are used in sequence. We agreed that it was not critical for the GAR and we decided to leave it for the FAR. The question was whether you need to surround the state name with a comma on either side when it follows a city name and additional text follows the state name as in "We went to San Francisco, California, this summer." Note that if the state name ends the sentence or there is no city name immediately before the state name, this rule does not apply.

Crum375 believed it was a question of style that was up to the author and I believed it was an English grammar rule. We both agreed that if either of us was in the minority of a consensus we would heed to the other side. Crum375 believed that the short nature of the text following the state name in the above example did not require the second comma after the state. It was only a question of style. He did acknowledge that if the text following the state name was longer and possibly more complex, then a comma after the state name would be warranted to help clarify the meaning, but it was still not required as a rule.

Crum375 and I covered a number of points in the GAR which can be seen above on this talk page. Something I did not bring up with Crum375 in our conversation was the sources referenced in the article seem to always follow the inclusion of the second comma (when the state name immediately follows the city name), but that could still be a question of style from all these authors I suppose.
 * Ref #1 At 0801:21, the pilot in command contacted the Casper AFSS6 via telephone and requested a weather briefing for a VFR flight from Cheyenne to Lincoln, Nebraska, the first scheduled fuel stop of the day’s intended flights.
 * Ref #1 She said he had flown twice to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and once to Sedona, Arizona.
 * Ref #1 In addition, his flight log showed that on April 8, he piloted a 4-hour flight conducted from Half Moon Bay to San Carlos, California, and return.
 * Ref #1 On Wednesday April 10, the airplane departed Half Moon Bay at 0700 PDT, and landed at Elko, Nevada, approximately 1020 PDT and was refueled. At Elko, the pilot in command closed the flight plan from Half Moon Bay, filed a new one to Rock Springs, Wyoming, and received a weather briefing for the Rock Springs flight.
 * Ref #1 This example shows that with a state name only, no comma is used, unless required for some other grammatical reason. The NWS26 0900 surface analysis chart showed a weak, quasistationary front extending from western Montana southeastward through southeastern Wyoming becoming a moderate cold front over extreme northeastern Colorado.

&sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref #2 She was to fly east in three legs, laying over in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, before finally reaching Falmouth, Massachusetts, the town where she was born.
 * Ref #4 ''Jessica, her entrepreneur father, Lloyd, and instructor Joe Reid were killed instantly when their single-engine Cessna Cardinal 177B plummeted into a residential neighborhood in Cheyenne, Wyo., shortly after takeoff."
 * Further Reading #1 Three years ago, Jessica, then 4, was a squatter with her mother, Lisa Blair Hathaway, in an abandoned house in Falmouth, Mass., according to police there, and the family was getting handouts from a local health food store.
 * Further Reading #1 While Jessica was mostly raised in Massachusetts, she lived in Pescadero, California, a tiny onetime fishing village where old dogs lazily patrol the streets because there is no traffic.

Unsourced material removal
Crum375, I noted that recently you reverted some edits by an unidentified editor as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:SOURCES. When I reviewed those sections I noticed something on which I wanted to understand your perspective. Take a look at WP:BURDEN. I found the following quote related to what was happening here in the revert of changes to the Infobox.
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[2]"

I assume you would not revert the changes if the editor included citations. Although I am not sure why the parents names was reverted. I doubt anyone would dispute the names of the parents since you listed them in the article and showed citations already. The infobox is listing many items that are in the article, but there are no source citations. I see this SF, CA newspaper covers the facts on the burial. http://articles.sfgate.com/keyword/jessica-dubroff Now the occupation and ethnicity may be more difficult to find sources specifically stating those facts, so maybe those should stay out unless sourced. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not personally keen on most of these additional parameters, but would not object if someone added them with an appropriate inline reliable source. I think the ethnicity should not be included even if there is a source for it, unless it explains why it is relevant to her notability (e.g. discrimination issue). And "occupation=adventurer" for a seven-year-old child would require an exceptional source in my view, per WP:REDFLAG, since there are millions of kids flying around the world every year without being called "adventurers", nor having an "occupation" of any kind. Being in an accident doesn't change that. Crum375 (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Crum375, I agree with all your comments. I noticed your friend added the items back in without adding any citations even after I listed them here. The IP address has only existed for 5 days. Since they have not signed in maybe they do not understand some of the deeper philosophies of Wikipedia. I hesitate to edit this article directly since I worked with you on the GA status and do not want to be called on a possible conflict of interest in retrospect. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your position and agree that, except for possible clear vandalism reversion, your direct editing could be perceived as problematic. I have reverted the unsourced additions, and hope that the IP will get the message. Crum375 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Dubroff.jpg
Could the person that removed the image bring their concern here please? Please state which specific fair use criteria the image doesn't match. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000  03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

'Dual flight control' picture
I know the intent of the picture is for showing the dual flight controls present in most airplanes, but it this picture also shows two Garmin 1000 primary fight displays which didn't exist at the time of the accident and the airplane itself is of a Cessna T182T which wasn't available until 2001. Driftwood87 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT
This biographical article of an unnotable individual seems to digress to be about a notable event. Perhaps it should be moved. Any suggestions as to whet we could rename it? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)