This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Barbara Jane Harrison is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
The Career section says "She refused to leave the plane to save herself and her body was found near that of a disabled pensioner, seated in one of the last rows." This can be read that the pensioner's body was found in a seated position; or that Harrison's and the pensioner's bodies were found seated. If the source for the wording in the Career section is the GC citation iteslf, "She was finally overcome while trying to save an elderly cripple who was seated in one of the last rows and whose body was found close to that of the stewardess", it seems to me that there are many possible interpretations of the situation:
1 - The GC citation could refer to the fact that the disabled person had been seated in one of the last rows during the flight, rather than was found in a seated position. He/She might have been helped to her feet during the evacuation and then slumped to the floor
2 - Harrison's body was found somewhere unspecified (?on the floor perhaps) near the seated passenger
3 - Both Harrison and the passenger's bodies were found in a seated position.
4 - From the GC citation, we know the passenger's body was found 'close to one of the stewardesses' - Harrison is NOT specified, and surely would have been named if it were her - and that Harrison was overcome while trying to help the passenger, so presumably was in the vicinity though we don't know this, we can only deduce it from the rather vague wording of the GC citation.
It sems to me there has been too much extrapolation from the GC citation sentence to the sentence in the article, especially given the ambiguity over several factors in the GC citation. 86.147.162.198 (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Generally true, however I would take issue with your point 4. It actually says that the passenger's body was "found close to that of the stewardess", not one of the stewardesses. Harrison was the only crew member killed, so it quite clearly refers to her. As to not being named, this is the way London Gazette citations were written. It was quite normal to refer to "the stewardess" or "the constable" or whatever after the first mention of their name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved it back to "Barbara Jane Harrison", because all the sources use "Barbara Jane Harrison" or "Barbara Harrison". Only the gravestone uses "Jane", and there appears to be a quote mark before it, indicating that the "Barbara" was elided.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George Cross Heroes by Lord Ashcroft states that she was always known as Jane Harrison, never as Barbara. This and her gravestone suggests to me that she was known as Jane, which is therefore what we should call her. Formal sources tend to be a little impersonal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parentheses are always used around disambiguators on Wikipedia. Yes, we know they are not used in real life, but this is simply a disambiguator to distinguish between her and other Jane Harrisons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. She was known as Jane, the name which is on her tombstone. The source is referenced in the article and has been for some time. The reason she is usually referred to by her full name is simply because she is mostly known from official sources like the London Gazette, which almost invariably do use full names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Two reasons: First, two reliable sources call her Barbara Jane Harrison (Flight International.BOAC: an illustrated history.), even though the Susan Ottaway biography does not. The memorial prize is "Barbara Harrison" (no Jane), even though the tombstone says "Jane". Second, I think if the full name works for disambiguation then it is preferably to any sort of parentheses. The full name is more elegant. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We do not use full names simply for disambiguation purposes, as clearly stated in the relevant guidelines. And what is "rather awkward" about the disambiguation? "(GC)" is the standard disambiguator for George Cross recipients, as a quick look at the relevant category will determine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you surf over to WP:PRECISION, you will see that "Natural disambiguation" is preferred to parentheses. Natural disambiguation is an alternate title that differentiates the topic. A full name qualifies as natural disambiguation if there is no other such name. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you take a look at WP:Naming conventions (people), the more specific guideline on this subject: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." Although this is use of a first name instead, I think the same principle applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support per much of the commentary above. I'm confused about what the source actually says. Does it say she was "typically known" as Jane, as asserted in the article, or does it say that's the name she preferred and was called during her lifetime? In the latter case, moving is definitely appropriate. Not sure about the former.--Chaser (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let's take a look at the facts here. First, let's remember that this lady was not known during her lifetime. She is known for one event and a posthumous honour awarded for that event. All media reporting of her was done after her death by reporters who took their knowledge of her from second-hand sources, mostly from her George Cross citation and the official report into the incident. Her George Cross citation in the London Gazette gives her full name "Barbara Jane Harrison". Of course it does. All honours citations in the London Gazette use the recipient's full name. The Flight International quote cited above merely repeats information from the London Gazette and the official report, as do most other media sources. However, the two main sources which actually discuss Miss Harrison as a person rather than a medal or a character in an official report (which, again, tend to use full names) use the name "Jane Harrison". The main book on the incident, Susan Ottaway's Fire Over Heathrow: The Tragedy of Flight 712, refers to her as "Jane Harrison" throughout. George Cross Heroes, by Michael Ashcroft, Britain's foremost authority on the recipients of the George Cross and Victoria Cross, states, and I quote, "Jane Harrison, as she was always known" (Chaser, you may want to change your opinion). Her tombstone bears the name "Jane". So, what we basically have is a divide between official sources, which call her "Barbara Jane Harrison", and unofficial (but better researched on a personal level) sources, which call her "Jane Harrison". To me, that means that she was clearly known in her lifetime as "Jane Harrison" and that's how we should title this article. As I have already pointed out, on Wikipedia we do not use full names just to disambiguate and "(GC)" is a commonly used and natural disambiguator. We use the name by which the individual was actually known. That is unequivocally "Jane Harrison". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The parenthetical "GC" is commonly used here but it is not natural disambiguation, not at all. The story you tell above is the one I already surmised from the sources, that Jane was what the woman went by. It changes nothing about my note that natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical. Jane's formal first name was Barbara which gives us a very elegant and formal disambiguation. "Jane" can (and must) be emphasised in the article text. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Necrothesp has told me supports the latter case, so my support for a change is no longer tentative. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names makes clear we should use the most common format of a name in reliable sources, and does not make the distinction (made above) between a source discussing someone's personality versus their officially-recognized accomplishments. Perhaps we should respect such distinctions: if so, that is a case for changing the guideline, and thereafter changing the title of this article.--Chaser (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So now we're merely counting up the numbers of occurrences of the name, are we? Not my reading of the guidelines I'm afraid. What we basically have here are four original reliable sources: two official sources which (naturally) use her full name and two sources which discuss her as a person (plus her gravestone) which do not. All other sources are mere regurgitated media reporting of the first two, not original in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter to me how many sources are found to establish that she went by Jane during her life. We are still faced with WP:PRECISION which recommends a natural disambiguation before parenthetical. Jane's birth name gives us that natural method. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you favour throwing out the naming conventions, do you? We never, ever use a name by which someone wasn't known merely for disambiguation, even if by doing so we need to use a parenthetical disambiguator. It's never done. Yet you're suggesting we do exactly that. Why for this one individual specifically? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What wild statements! COMMONNAME is good for the issues it addresses, but it says nothing about disambiguation. It is simply not the guideline we should look to for answering this question. I am not "throwing [it] out". Your global statement about "never, ever" is incorrect—we can see F. Henry Edwards separated from the other Henry Edwards guys by the "F." even though he was known as Henry, we can see that, of all the Charles Wheelers there are four disambiguated with a parenthesis and four disambiguated with a middle initial or middle name, similarly, of all the William Porters there are eight disambiguated with a middle initial or middle name while only three or four are disambiguated with parentheses. The examples could go on and on but you get the point. Let's let WP:PRECISION be our guide. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please! Those people are "disambiguated" with their middle names or initials because that's the form of their name they used. You can't use that as an example. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. The (GC) should be removed from the page name anyway. Looking at the current DAB, 'Jane Harrison' is not taken. Move page to Jane Harrison, drop the (GC) on the DAB, keeping the usual short description, and create a redirect for 'Barbara Jane Harrison'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. Current title is of no use to just about anyone (i.e. I don't know what (GC) means, and therefore why should I expect any other reader to know that?). If multiple sources refer to her as Barbara ... then so be it. Worst case scenario is to move this to "Jane Harrison (stewardess)". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp you have been defending this position since at least 2008 (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 5#D. D. Lewis (Seattle Seahawks) and D. D. Lewis (Dallas Cowboys)) and you reverted a moved I made to "Bomber" Harris article that year. The wording was originally placed into the guideline when it was first created with little or no discussion by an editor who tended to work that way. There are times when dabbing on something else makes sense, for example if the middle name is never mentioned in reliable sources, but if it is (as it is in the case of "Bomber" Harris) eg "Sir Arthur Travers Harris (1892–1984)". ODNB. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/31203., then I think that interpreting Naming conventions (people) as a total prohibition on using middle names for disambiguation contradicts the article title policy and it should not be interpreted that way. If the wording is such that the guidance does contradict policy the guidance should be changed. -- PBS (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, I disagree with you that the policy says what you think it says. WP:COMMONNAME is part of that policy. Where does it say there that names that aren't used in real life should be used in article titles? Since we're talking about Harris (who is now, incidentally, correctly disambiguated using his title), WP:PRECISION says "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title (do not, however, use obscure or made up names)." (italics mine) Harris is never referred to as "Arthur Travers Harris" except in formal documents which always make us of full names. Most people would be unaware of his full name, so what is the point of disambiguating using a disambiguator (his middle name) which most people would be unaware of? Disambiguation is intended to make it clear who is being referred to, so using an obscure middle name defeats the object (as the policy clearly states). Coming back to this case, disambiguating using "GC" is not a problem, since this is the only thing that Miss Harrison is known for. If you don't know she won the GC (or what the GC is), then you're unlikely to be looking for an article about her in the first place. That is why military officers who won the VC or GC and then reached senior rank are disambiguated using "British Army officer", "RAF officer" etc instead of "VC" or "GC", as they're better known for their overall military service than a single decoration. I think this whole discussion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what disambiguators are actually for. Incidentally, if you don't like the wording in the guideline, which has been there for years without being contested, then you should try to get it changed on the talk page for that guideline. Complaining about it in an obscure RM discussion is probably not terribly productive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change WP:PRECISION to say that parentheses used for dab are preferable to rarely used middle names, little known middle initials, rarely used first names, etc., you should go to the guideline's talk page and propose the change. This RM is not the place to argue for such changes. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Removed an online reference pertaining to the fact that Harris is the youngest female recipient. The link was no longer good (went to a commercial site), and the site replacing that in the original reference (http://www.marionhebblethwaite.co.uk/gcindex.htm) no longer contains the info to support the fact (i.e., age of recipients). By looking up other female recipients (there aren't many) I was easily able to confirm that Harris is (so far) the youngest female recipient by one year.
I searched but could not find an alternate reliable online source for the crunched data. I don't think the lack of reference does much damage--not as much as being misdirected to GC Finance. Richigi (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Barbara Jane Harrison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
