Talk:Trevor Jacob

Stunt pilot

It should be included and discussed what type of stunt pilot TJ actually is.

Bogg Smith (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bogg Smith: If you would like to have information added to the article but are unable due to the current protection level, make an edit request. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Crash Write-up

"The video footage does not show Jacob carrying out any engine failure checklists..."

This is not noted anywhere on my reliable source, AVweb. AVweb appears to be a knowledgable and reliable source of aviation news. I would not trust the comments below.

However accurate the above statement is, it appears to be the editor's opinion. This is a biography of a living person (WP:BLP), so we need to be careful. Maybe the FAA will determine it really was an engine failure!JHowardGibson (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In the video he posted the engine stalls, and he jumps out. So the video is the evidence. If he wanted it too look like a real engine failure he would have shown the part where he actually tried to restart the engine.

And, even it if WAS an engine failure, he could still land the plane. The fact that he does not show any restart and also were quick to recover footage (that he is not showing / showing heavily edited) is suspicios. It also seems as he actually removed the plane and scrapped it before FAA looked at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.151.110.204 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not really how reliable sources work... in that it isn't one. Seasider53 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; per WP:NOR, we need to stick to what published sources say about the video and not what we ourselves see in the video, regardless of how obvious it seems. Since the first post was made, more published sources have emerged, and I've carefully rewritten the section trying to stay as close as possible to what those sources say. Additionally, regarding the story that Jacob and his minions removed the wreckage and scrapped everything, reliable published sources are treating this strictly as a rumor, so I've omitted this part of the story per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. Carguychris (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have just simplified the lede paragraph, (re)establishing in it a neutral tone appropriate for Wikipedia. What the hell possessed somebody to add a mention of D. B. Cooper? The Plane Crash piece contains way too much editorial content. WP:SOAP??? A possible outcome here could be that the FAA will find that the engine really failed, and that a lot of YouTubers and bloggers will have to eat crow. Other than removing D. B. Cooper, I did not touch the plane crash section. We need to go through this and remove the editorials. If we need every tiny detail of the incident, we can click on the sources. Perhaps much of this detail is not needed by Wikipedia! JHowardGibson (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've pared the crash description down, reworded it a bit for WP:NPOV, and removed a few details that didn't seem immediately pertinent to the purported engine failure. The remaining description and the editorial comments are all supported by independent experts and local witnesses identified by the cited sources. I don't think the level of detail here is unreasonable; it's nothing compared to the painstaking frame-by-frame analysis (with some additional bizarre revelations) that can be found on YouTube! Carguychris (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Recentism

Is this an article about an Olympic snowboarder who happened to be in a plane crash, or a pilot who crashed who happened to go to the Olympics? It's currently written and structured as the latter, giving inappropriate emphasis and detail to recent, relatively less significant events. Please try to keep things in perspective and in proportion. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Think of how an article in a real encyclopedia would look, and aim for that level of quality and conciseness. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Nationality in lead sentence, readded

Per MOSBIO, I would include this unless there is some reason to go against out MOS. --Malerooster (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories for businesses

Why does the article categorize Jacob as a businessperson, chairperson and company founder? Is this sourced? The (increasingly common) published stories about him never discuss his business activities, only to his YouTube channel, flying, snowboarding and skydiving. Carguychris (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

YouTube, WP:BLP and WP:RS

Just a friendly reminder to new editors: since Jacob is a living person, please review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before editing this page to include factoids from the myriad frame-by-frame analyses of the video that populate YouTube. Wikipedia is a compendium of information from reliable published sources such as news organizations. Self-published opinions and analysis by YouTubers generally fail to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, specifically WP:USERG, and posting one's own analysis violates WP:No original research. Cheers! Carguychris (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My Edits 10 February 2022

I have just changed the words "alleged" back to "apparent". I have changed the expression "aviation experts" back to "aviation enthusiasts". Just about all the commentary about the crash is up on blogs, forums and YouTube. These do not meet standards for Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We will not have an "expert" opinion until some credentialed professional examines the wreck and submits an official report. Keep considering the possibility that the engine genuinely failed. JHowardGibson (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @JHowardGibson:, you beat me to it. First, the cited sources make it clear that it's not only quoted experts who are questioning Jacob's claims, so the terms "enthusiasts" and "community" are appropriate. Second, per WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation about whether the engine really failed; the prop stopped turning, and the pilot (Jacob) says that the engine failed, so until published expert opinions contradicting his claims emerge, it remains "apparent" that the engine failed. Carguychris (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Summary of the FAA action

Hello. I recently edited the lead section's summary of the FAA action. Multiple reliable sources ([1], [2], [3]) summarize the action as the FAA revoked his pilot certificate after finding that Jacob deliberately crashed the plane in order to film it. The letter itself is quoted by NBC, among others:

“On November 24, 2021, you demonstrated a lack of care, judgment, and responsibility by choosing to jump out of an aircraft solely so you could record the footage of the crash,” the FAA's emergency order of revocation letter says. [4]

Given how clear that statement is in this and other sources, it seemed like our summary of the action should be in line with that. I have avoided "deliberately" or "intentionally", though the RS would support this. The 'sole purpose' wording is a direct paraphrase of the FAA letter and, I think, does the job. Given that we are quoting several outlets quoting a government finding of fact and order, it's pretty solid ground I think. Chris vLS (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree and I've added "sole purpose" to the article body. Carguychris (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Short description

Should we add "criminal", "confessed felon", or something similar to the short description? Carguychris (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I would wait until a conviction is entered personally. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, the second paragraph implies that the charges are based on his lying about the final disposal of the aircraft wreckage. But it’s clear from the cited source that the cause of action was the destruction and disposal of the aircraft, which Jacobs has admitted to. The destruction of evidence is serious and pertinent enough to be included in the second paragraph.

I understand the need to remain neutral, but the article reads like it’s been sanitized, with the negatives glossed over. 2806:102E:17:279F:E8CB:76F0:2177:1F83 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I see your point and I've reworded the lead. Carguychris (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Trevor Jacob plane crash article

I have AfD'd the recently created Trevor Jacob plane crash spinoff article per WP:CFORK. Discussion here. Carguychris (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)