Talk:Amelia Earhart

Earhart

December 2005 (UTC)

One wiki page says on thing,another says the other,which is correct?

On the "Purdue" Wikipage it says this:

"Purdue also played a central role in Earhart's ill-fated "Flying Laboratory" project, providing funds for the Lockheed L-10 Electra aircraft she intended to fly around the world. Earhart began her fateful transoceanic flight from the Purdue University Airport.

On the Wikipage "Amelia Earhart" it says this:

"This time flying west to east, the second attempt began with an unpublicized flight from Oakland to Miami, Florida and after arriving there Earhart publicly announced her plans to circumnavigate the globe."

So did she leave from oakland,ca. , miami,fl. or west lafayette,in.?

Barn Otis66Driftwood 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Miami; the other flights represented interim or staging flights. IMHO Bzuk 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

To expand on this, "officially" they left from Oakland. In truth they started in Burbank and nothing was made public until they left from Miami. Gwen Gale 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

so do you want me to update these pages?..im not too good with the format,but im at work so ive got plenty of time. i wonder who put it on there that she left from lafayette. i may try to call the airport and see what they say.

if i find anything ill put up here first...I AM NOT A VANDEL

Otis66Driftwood 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no conflict. First, the text doesn't say Purdue funded the plane specifically for the world flight. Second, there were two world flight attempts. The first attempt was widely publicized in advance but she ground-looped the plane in Hawaii. Whatever the cause of this mishap, it wasn't helpful from a marketing standpoint (the whole pith of this flight was, at its economic core, a stunt to sell books), so when she made the second attempt, this time alone with Noonan and in the opposite direction, GP kept it all quite dark until they had at least made it to Miami before announcing that the 2nd attempt was indeed underway. Gwen Gale 15:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, the text is not misleading nor is there a need for a revision. IMHO Bzuk 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Oops, I think I missed something in the post. I have rm'd the text from the Purdue article which asserted she began the world flight from the airport there. Gwen Gale 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WHATS THE DEAL GWEN GAIL?

YA JUST GO ROUND REMOVIN STUFF CAUSE ITS CONTRADICTING?

WELL WHO SAYS WHICH PART IS WRONG OR RIGHT,YOU DIDNT 'CITE YOUR REFRENCES',HOW DO WE KNOW YOU ARE CORRECT?

WELL POOP IN MY MOUF,THIS PLACE IS SO HIPPO-CRITICAL IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER.

YOU JUST PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO,ILL NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING I READ HERE ANYMORE ANYWAY.

FOUR TILEDS

Success?

Is it too speculative to mention, had she N changed direction, but flown out of HI as planned, by making the longest, most difficult leg first, rather than last, she'd have made it? Trekphiler 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's pure speculation. I've heard it, though. Don't know how helpful it would be to include it. Wyss 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is, based on Goerner, fatige played a part in the loss. From his description of her state at Lae, she was exhausted, far from sharp; no surprise, considering the conditions & how far they'd flown. If she'd started with the hardest leg, fatige wouldn't have entered the picture. Trekphiler 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Kio34's addition

This was the content of a newly created page entitled Amelia Earhart Life Summary:

Amelia Earhart was born in Atchison, Kansas on July 24, 1897. When she was born, Amelia didn’t really like airplanes all that much, but all that changed when she saw an air show. Amelia Earhart got her first plane ride from a pilot named Frank; she then wanted to fly more and more. Amelia got her flying license in 1921 after taking lessons from Neta Snook. Amelia’s first plane was a Kinner Airstar, which she used to cross the Atlantic Ocean. In 1932 she sold her plane and worked in the government for the next four years. She then bought another plane known as an Avro Avian. She used this plane to cross the country and break a world record for the first women to ever fly alone across the nation. Later on in her life, she married a fellow named G.P. Putnam.

own name. After their marriage, G.P. and Amelia started to plan stunts and to break more flying records because they were both pilots. Then, in 1932, Amelia flew alone across the Atlantic in a Lockheed Vega to break another a record. That made Amelia famous. That same year, she received the Distinguished Flying Cross by the US Congress. Then, four years later, Amelia Earhart was given a Lockheed 10E Electra courtesy of Perdue University; She used this plane to attempt to fly around the world along the equator. Unfortunately, Amelia’s first attempt to fly around the world was shattered after the wheel was broken on her plane and was to be repaired. Her next attempt ended in disaster when the radio contact was lost between the plane and the tower. The plane seemed to disappear out of thin air because no wreckage of their plane was ever discovered. Amelia’s hard work and effort towards flight inspired females to be pilots too. That opened up a whole new generation of flight.

<KF> 23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This contains various contridictions to what's in the article, and as it has no sources to back it up, should be regarded as inaccurate. I've redir the article, and we can just ignore the text above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, for one thing, there was no "tower" on Howland island. The above contains many conflations and inaccuracies. Uhm, in fact, about everything it says has some sort of factual problem. Wyss 08:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct Category

Should she be in Category:1937 deaths? Although 1937 is the most likely year of her death, it’s not absolute fact and perhaps Category:Year of death missing would be more appropriate. Philip Stevens 07:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is fleeting, documented archaeological and British archival evidence (put no proof) she may have survived on Nikumaroro until sometime in 1938. The likelihood is overwhelming that she did die in either 1937 (most likely) or 1938 (a possibility). Although this is still controversial among aviation historians, many believe that a skeleton found on the island in October 1940 was hers (which was also the opinion of the British colonial officer who first saw it). Wyss 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1937 is the widely accepted year of her death. The 50th anniversary was held in 1987, etc. 23skidoo 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 1937 is supported by most reputable sources and is most likely the year she died. Wyss 16:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, there are probably a few conspiracy theorists who'd be happy to add her to the infamous Living People category! ;-) 23skidoo 16:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, if not for them I wouldn't mind putting her in Category:Year of death missing but with all the unsupported fringe babbling and urban legends floating about it would be far too misleading. She was most likely gone by the end of 1937 and there is, in effect, zero evidence to indicate she made it past sometime in 1938. Wyss 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Anybody else get the impression some teacher out there gave their class an assignment on Amelia Earhart, and they've all come here one by one to vent their annoyance? --Calair 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's spot on what I was thinking. These vandal visits come in waves and every time, I imagine her (the teacher) saying without end how wonderful AE was, then assigning the wonted "Internet research report" or whatever while the sniggering monkey boys in the back row plan their revenge. Wyss 22:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whose Grandfather?

In this sentence: "She sent the girls to private schools using money from a trust fund set up by her grandfather Alfred.", "she" refers to Amy, Amelia's mother. Yet Amelia's grandfather was also named Alfred. Are these the same Alfred? If so, the sentence should read something like "She sent the girls to private schools using money from a trust fund set up by the children's grandfather Alfred.". --Riordanmr 00:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Classified?

At the end of the section on her world flight is the comment, "To this day, US government documents concerning Earhart and her disappearance remain classified." Is there any documentation to back this up? The web page http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEmyths.html calls this a myth and cites the FoIA request number 9105146 as finding no evidence of any classified files in 1991. --12.47.49.97 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FAI pilot license

Hi. There seems to be a bit of incongruency as to weather AE was the first, 16th or the 22nd woman to receive an FAI pilot license. The text here says she was 22nd, but the official AE site says she was the first, according to Answers.com, 16th, and so does this page. Can anybody clarify, perhaps with a trustworthy quote? --Erwinwessels 06:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As ameliaearhart.com is run by her family, we should look elsewhere for confirmation of the claim. The answers.com article is mirroring an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. The statement that she was the 16th woman to receive a pilot's license was changed in Wikipedia on May 30 without any comment by an anonymous IP with no other edits. I'm changing it back and using the u-s-history.com web page as the source. -- Donald Albury 12:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Strange how things like these slowly disappear into the mysts of time. I might see if I can drop somebody at the FAI a line to see if they are willing and able to clarify. -- Erwinwessels 09:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Any reply you receive from them would be OR, and not usable as a source. If they can point you to a reliable published source listing the early licensees, that would be wonderful. -- Donald Albury 12:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I did receive a response: According to NAA's book on our history, Amelia Earhart was the first woman and the 17th pilot to receive an NAA's pilot license (this happened in 1923). NAA issued pilot licenses until the government took over in the 1920's. I'll see if I can find a verifiable, preferably print source that we can quote. --Erwin Wessels 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I did find what appears to be the book the lady referred to, but can't find a copy in a library in Holland. If anybody would care to check in a US library, I'd be much obliged - the isbn is 1560981873 and at least the LoC seems to hold a copy. Thanks, --Erwin Wessels 18:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Captain Harry Manning

According to Lost Star by Patricia Lauber, on the world flight, Captain Harry Manning was originally AE's navigator, and couldn't accompany AE and Noonan after the flight had to be rescheduled because of the technical difficulties in Hawaii... Yet this article doesn't seem to mention him. PBuG

There seems to be very little mentioned in the documents about him, only some photographs. (A photograph assumedly from the day of the first departure). As it looks like, Paul Manz was her navigator on that leg, and Manning possibly had helped plan the route and stayed behind, or he was the mysterious "passenger" due to leave in Honolulu (Quite likely actually, because there is also a picture of him viewing the wreck in Honolulu. (my personal conclusion)). Some sources say that Manz had doubts about Earhart's flying skills, and therefor didn't participate in the second attempt, but that is mainly speculation.

By the way, why can't I see a date when the above question was entered? So I don't actually know if I'm way out of date with my answer... Islander(Scandinavia) 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Further reading states quite clearly (In TIGHAR's investigations) That all four of them was on the flight to Honolulu, but Manz was the one to stay in Hawaii, and Manning planned to be on the plane to Australia. Islander(Scandinavia) 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Myths and conspiracy theories

Bottom of the Pacific

Could the plane not have crashed into the sea? The Pacific Ocean is many miles deep and her body may be lying far down in the ocean. XPhile2868 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fringe theories etc

Here are some comments regarding the theories of disappearance of Amelia Earhart

It is written in the article: "A photograph supposedly of Earhart during her captivity exists, though skeptics have pointed out that it looks like it was taken at the same time as other photos shot before her final flight" -

- yes, such a photographs exist... most frequently two of them are presented - with Earhart near the car and the "oriental" facebehind. Actually that photo was made in January 1935 just before the Earhart's flight from Hawaii to California, and that oriental person is not a "Japanese guard" as some conspiracy theorists suggested but just some airport worker. Identically, the photo of Earhart as if "made in Japanese captivity" - presented in the Randall Brink's book - was actually made after the failure (groundloop) of her first World Flight attempt in March 1937.

It is written in the article: "Possibly the strangest suggestion is that Earhart was forced to make propaganda radio broadcasts as one of the many women known as Tokyo Rose" -

- personally, i would remove this phrase at all, because this "theory" - really strangest as the article fairly says - is completely discredited and debunked since long ago. So today the mentioning of this "Tokyo Rose stuff" together with Earhart's name only baselesly tarnishes Earhart in some sense, creating a "wrong connection" in the minds and memory of modern readers. It was really a strange, bizarre rumor, that appeared in a special wartime atmosphere - together with hundreds of other equally bizarre rumors created by increased secrecy and deficit of information. Obviously it was completely illogical from very beginning. If about Earhart herself, there is absolutely no any legitimate base to guess that she could be a traitor. All that is known about her strongly suggests that she was a loyal and patriotic American. If about Japanese, it was absolutely no sense for them to force Earhart to broadcast for them anonymously (as all the propaganda effect would be in WHO the broadcaster was! - so what for to use Earhart for this??). But it would be equally absolutely no sense for them to use her voice openly - because it would disclose her presence in Japanese hands, the thing that Japanese Government furiously denied all the time - both before and afterthe World War 2.

Despite its obviously enough bizarre nature (or maybe - paradoxally - just because of it!), this rumor could exist for some time - until there was no complete postwar investigation of the Tokyo Rose case.

This investigation was open, very detailed, and included an interrogation of many participants and witnesses of the Japanese propaganda radio broadcasting efforts, including some VIPs - like Colonel Shigetsugu Tsuneishi. The published materials of the Tokyo Rose trial includes more then 7000 pages of text.

NO any slightest connection to Amelia Earhart (or any base to suspect such a connection) was ever found. So - in fact - the myth about this alleged connection is dead since long ago. The problem is that this myth - being once launched - already continues to "live" regardless to facts... However it seems reasonable not to "help" the distribution of such a sort of baseless myths... especially in educational projects (like encyclopedias). This is why i would remove the mentioning of Tokyo Rose from the Earhart page.

There is written in the article: "Yet another school of thought suggests that Earhart later managed to return to America where she changed her name and lived out her life quietly" -

This theory was enough popular in early 70s, and now some "old admirers" of it still tries to "re-vitalize" it... however, in fact it is completely baseless. Moreover, it is in strict controversy to many documented facts that are firmly established about Earhart.

In contrary to some modern claims, alas until today still no shade of factual proof for this was ever presented. Particularly, recently Mr. Tod Swindell, an enthusiastic supporter of this theory, prepared a set of photographic overlays that he consider as proof that Amelia Earhart (AE) survived as Irene Bolam (IB).

However it is worth to consider that Mr. Swindell is not a professional in forensic research, and any supportive official verdict of the forensic research professionals never followed. Moreover, at close examination of the photos it is obvious for any non-biased view that in reality Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam had many differences, both in bodial and facial characteristics.

It is also worth to remember that Major Joe Gervais - the father of this theory - never meet Earhart in person before 1965 (when he saw Irene Bolam and 'decided' that she 'must be' Earhart). So the value of his 'recognition' of Earhart in Irene Bolam has at least highly doubtful level of credibility.

Actually, the fact is that there were many people who knew BOTH women personally, and they all were firmly convinced that Earhart and Bolam were different persons.

There are many obvious stretches in this theory, and the questions without a proper and reasonable answers.

First of all: WHY at all would Earhart abandon her identity to become a New Jersey housewife? No fact or even believable theoretical reasons for this idea have ever been presented, only speculative guesses in contradiction with many credible historical sources about Earhart's personality have been offered.

How it was possible for Earhart to abandon her family, especially her mother and sister, to whom she was extremely close? Also, how it was possible for her to abandon and never contact her husband George Putnam, as well as her numerous friends? Earhart's dedication and loyalty to family and friends was really legendary.

Where was Earhart between 1937 and 1945? In contrary to the concept of Irene Bolam theory, no evidence has ever been found in Japan to indicate AE's presence there that appears minimally credible in any way. Some statements of the theory, like about Earhart's secret life in Japanese Imperial palace with Emperor Hirohito, are obviously beyond a reasonable belief for any historically aware person.

What happened to the real, original Irene Bolam? As it was found by historical researchers, she certainly existed between 1934 and 1945, and was working in the banking business in New York City.

Why would the Government use the name and identity of a real person, known by many people and living an active, normal life, in a plot to transform this individual into another, discrete individual (Earhart) without these people becoming aware of it?

How and why could such an immense and long-lived conspiracy, with hundreds or even thousands of people necessarily involved, be organized and kept secret for decades? It has been proposed that AE's family and friends were aware of the conspiracy, but were all somehow persuaded to remain silent about it.

But nothing of substance has ever been offered to support this idea, and it's virtually impossible to assume that so many people, by some 'secret agreement', successfully concealed this plot from entire world for many decades. It is extremely hard to keep such a stuff in secrecy - for both 'technical' and emotional reasons.

If even to guess that the 'price of secrecy' that AE was compelled to pay included abandoning her family and friends, why then would AE, as IB, go on to live such a documented, semi-public lifestyle, attending aviation-related public events, joining organizations like Zontas and 99s (where AE was a former member) and meeting numerous people who personally knew AE?

Finally - if it was a 'great conspiracy' with a governmental interests involved - why would the U.S.Government allow the personal meeting of IB and Mr. Joe Gervais, who was already well known as a persistent AE researcher?

Considering all he above, it seems very difficult to accept seriously the concept of Amelia Earhart's secret repatriation as Irene Bolam. It looks like just a theory, and enough far-fetched, bizarre and radical one, at that. There is no any serious reason to consider it as real solution of AE disappearance mystery.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, Ph.D. Naval and aviation historian, author; member of US Naval institute and Association of Naval Aviation.

Amelia Earhart historian and enthusiast since 1982.

SOURCES:

1. Amelia Earhart. The Fun of It. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1932 (republished by Gale Research Company, Book Tower, Detroit, 1975). 2. Amelia Earhart. Last Flight. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1937 (republished by Orion Books, New York, 1975). 3. Amelia Earhart. 20 Hours and 40 Minutes. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1928. 4. Muriel Earhart Morrissey, Carol L. Osborne. Amelia, My Courageous Sister. Biography of Amelia Earhart. Osborne Publisher, Incorporated. Santa Clara, California, 1987. 5. Jean L. Backus. Letters From Amelia 1901-1937. An Intimate Portrait of Amelia Earhart. Beacon Press, Boston, 1982. 6. Mary S. Lovell. The Sound Of Wings. St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1989. 7. Susan Butler. East to the Dawn. The Life of Amelia Earhart. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997. 8. Doris L. Rich. Amelia Earhart. A Biography. Dell Publishing, NY, 1989. 9. Sally P. Chapman. Whistled Like A Bird. Warner Books, NY, 1997. 10. Nancy Shore. Amelia Earhart. Aviator. Chelsea House Publishers, Philadelphia, 1987. 11. Donald M. Goldstein, Katherine V. Dillon. Amelia. A Life of The Aviation Legend. Brassey’s, London – Washington. 1997. 12. Fred Goerner. The Search For Amelia Earhart. Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, New York, 1966. 13. Donald M. Wilson. Amelia Earhart: Lost Legend. Enigma Press, Florida. 1999 (Revised and expanded edition). 14. Mike Campbell with Thomas E. Devine. With Our Own Eyes. Eyewitnesses to the Final Days of Amelia Earhart. Lucky Press, LLC. Ohio, 2002. 15. Joe Klaas. Amelia Earhart Lives. McGraw Hill, NY, 1970 16. Rollin C. Reineck. Amelia Earhart Survived. The Paragon Agency, Orange, California, 2003 17. James A. Donahue. The Earhart Disappearance: The British Connection. SunShine House, Incorporated. Terre Haute, IN, 1987. 18. Randall Brink. Lost Star. The Search for Amelia Earhart. W.W. Norton Co., Inc. NY, 1994. 19. Thomas F. King. Amelia Earhart Shoes. AltaMira Press, California, 2001. 20. Shirley D. Gilroy. Amelia: Pilot in Pearls. Link Press Publishers. McLean, Virginia, 1985. 21. Jacqueline Cochran. Stars at Noon. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1954. 22. Louise Thaden. High, Wide and Frightened. Stackpole Sons, NY, 1938. 23. Roxane Chadwick. Amelia Earhart – Aviation Pioneer. Lerner Publications Company, Minneapolis, 1987. 24. Patricia Lauber. Lost Star: The Story of Amelia Earhart. Scholastic Incorporated, New York, 1988. 25. Valerie Moolman. Women Aloft. Time–Life Books. Alexandria, Virginia, 1981. 26. Carl M. Dunrud. Let’s Go! 85 Years of Adventure. Words Worth, Cody, Wyoming. 1998. 27. Mary V. Nickerson. The Decoy and the Dove. 1st Books Library, USA, 2002 28. AES Newsletters – Volumes I, II. Proceedings of AES prepared, processed and composed by Bill Prymak. 2003. 29. Amelia Earhart Discussion Group Internet Website. 30. Woodbridge News – the set of articles from newspaper from 1982, dedicated to investigation of IB theory soon after her death. 31. TIGHAR TRACKS - Newsletter of the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery. 32. Virginia Morell. Amelia Earhart. National Geographic, Jan. 1998, pp.112-135. 33. John P. Riley. The Earhart Tragedy: Old Mystery, New Hypothesis. Naval History, Aug. 2000. 34. Ronald Bright. Amelia Earhart: the Marshall Islands Evidence. Unpublished manuscript. Bremerton, 2001. 35. Ronald Bright, Pat Gaston. The Monsignor James F. Kelley’s Evidence. Unpublished manuscript. Bremerton, 2004. 36. Bruce D. Hoy. Amelia Earhart Remembered. Paradise Magazine. Boroko, Papua New Guinea, No. 63 – 1987.

Bold textTo this "Fringe theories" Chapter, i would add the fact that the professional criminal forensic expert invited by National Geographic - Mr. Kevin Richland - conclusively debunked this "Bolam myth", pointing the attention to many factual "anatomic" facial differencies between Earhart and Bolam.

As Mr. Richland commented, he was taking an objective look, critically, of the "photographic overlays technique" used by Mr. Todd Swindell and other "Bolam theory fans".

He said, particularly, that it is easy to find two proportionately similar people. You can morph a wide variey of the population and "The real value of side by side comparisons is to note the dis-simularities, the differences."

When comparing Bolam and Earhart, the forensic professional found numerous and serious differences. Many facial; features are definitely different... particularly, their eyebrows are different... their noses are different... their mouths are different.... and so on.

The expert did show all these differences, by using a pencil or pointer to trace these differences in the comparison photos.. and he said, in a definite way, that there were two different people. He ended by saying that if someone came to him with these photos, and said they were the same person, they should find work elsewhere, as this IS NOT where their talents lay.

Also, the statement about Irene Bolam's parents as if being "unknown" seems strange, for not to say more.

Conversely to many "conspiracy theories", persistently pushed by some authors, the real biography and documental information about Irene Bolam is not any "enigma" at all, and the exact (supported by many authentic documents) story of her life was pretty detailedly investigated by several Earhart researchers, and it all is well known since quite long ago.

Particularly, yet in autumn of 1982 - quite shortly after the death of Irene Bolam (that happened in July 7 of 1982) the long "chain" of articles about this topic was published in the Woodbridge News (NJ) newspaper. It included some items from the Bolam's family archive... particularly the photos, and greeting cards sent by hher parents to her yet in 40s.. etc.etc. etc.

There is simply no way for any historic researcher pretending to be serious to ignore somehow all these historic items "in favor" of some anti-historic and anti-factual "terrible conspiracy theories", supported by nothing at all and still alive only and exclusively because of the unawareness and "gullibility" of the general public, not properly informed about the serious work of many historic researchers who conclusively debunked these "urban myths", already many times, and since quite long ago.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD, Earhart historian and researcher since 1982.

I've also seen a '36 or '37 film of a female aviator hired by USG (USN?) to do a recce flight over Japanese terr in CPac, perhaps inspired by Earhart's project (& perhaps inspiring the myths since?). Trekphiler 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why all this stuff is in an "Urban legends" section, it's thoroughly discredited codswallop. Wyss 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would add to this chapter the fact that the professional criminal forensic expert invited by National Geographic - Mr. Kevin Richland - conclusively debunked this "Bolam myth", pointing the attention to many factual "anatomic" facial differencies between Earhart and Bolam.

As Mr. Richland commented, he was taking an objective look, critically, of the "photographic overlays technique" used by Mr. Todd Swindell and other "Bolam theory fans".

He said, particularly, that it is easy to find two proportionately similar people. You can morph a wide variey of the population and "The real value of side by side comparisons is to note the dis-simularities, the differences."

When comparing Bolam and Earhart, the forensic professional found numerous and serious differences. Many facial; features are definitely different... particularly, their eyebrows are different... their noses are different... their mouths are different.... and so on.

The expert did show all these differences, by using a pencil or pointer to trace these differences in the comparison photos.. and he said, in a definite way, that there were two different people. He ended by saying that if someone came to him with these photos, and said they were the same person, they should find work elsewhere, as this IS NOT where their talents lay.

Also, the statement about Irene Bolam's parents as if being "unknown" seems strange, for not to say more.

Conversely to many "conspiracy theories", persistently pushed by some authors, the real biography and documental information about Irene Bolam is not any "enigma" at all, and the exact (supported by many authentic documents) story of her life was pretty detailedly investigated by several Earhart researchers, and it all is well known since quite long ago.

Particularly, yet in autumn of 1982 - quite shortly after the death of Irene Bolam (that happened in July 7 of 1982) the long "chain" of articles about this topic was published in the Woodbridge News (NJ) newspaper. It included some items from the Bolam's family archive... particularly the photos, and greeting cards sent by hher parents to her yet in 40s.. etc.etc. etc.

There is simply no way for any historic researcher pretending to be serious to ignore somehow all these historic items "in favor" of some anti-historic and anti-factual "terrible conspiracy theories", supported by nothing at all and still alive only and exclusively because of the unawareness and "gullibility" of the general public, not properly informed about the serious work of many historic researchers who conclusively debunked these "urban myths", already many times, and since quite long ago.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD, Earhart historian and researcher since 1982.

I have no idea who Alex Mandel is and I would hope he would sign his wikipedia submission, otherwise, it seems like a loopy entry. Bzuk 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Bzuk, i didn't know that it may be so important about the "account"... but if it is so, so here i logged in.

If anybody can be interested about this: i am the Naval and aviation historian, the member of US Naval institute and the Association of the Naval Aviation; also the author of two books about the history of designs and development of US Navy Battleships - published in Russia in 2002 and 2004. the Earhart historian since 1982.

Kind Regards - Alex V.Mandel, PhD.

P.P.S. (A reply to your last remark)

BZUK, thanks for your reply,. Here i am responsibly confirming that my comment was not an "attempt of vandalism" but a conscious attemt to make a useful contribution to the article and the discussion, with a reference to some revelant facts and sources confirming these points about "Irene Bolam theory" that i made.

I am not very sure what you mean calling my comments as "chaotic"... i just tried my best to present the factual info i have... and, if you are "at the controls" of Wikipedia, and you got my points but somehow consider it as not very well formulated, or so - naturally you have a full possibilty (and my agreement) to "edit" it in your way - how (accordingly to your opinion) it can be presented on Wikipedia website. I assure you i am driven by not any personal ambitions or other such a silly things but exclusively by a dedication to the truth and historic correctness.

Kind Regards - Merry Christmas - alex P.S. Also, it is not very clear for me why somebody apparently removed the chapter about the "paranormal things"... it was pretty much "on its place", reasonably accompanying the "Bolam theory" nonsence. :)

Alex, the comments were not chaotic, it was the presentation format that you chose that made them very difficult to read. There is a style or format to writing Wikipedia articles that is the normal convention adopted by editors. For example, observe the section headings and use of reference citations in the body of the Amelia Earhart article for a "common" style. Forgive me for seeming testy, but this article has been under attack for the last few weeks by people who can charitably be called "vandals," so I was merely ensuring that the article was able to be developed in a systematic way. I welcome your very valid comments and will try to incorporate them along with other submissions so that the Amelia Earhart article is a well researched and accurate document. BzukSunday, 2006-12-24 T 04:23 UTC

Bzuk, Thank you for your kind reply and attention. Sorry, alas i am really not very good in Web-design and these things about use of computer instruments for editing the webpage... just wanted to share the factual info on the topic i have.. so, sorry if my attempt to be helpful caused any inconvenience.

I will appreciate it if your would find a possibility to consider this information (about National Geographic movie, their expert, the Bolam theory etc.) and include it somehow into the article, as you said... just "for the benefit of the truth and factual correctness", nothing else.

Also, please note that the little chapter about the "paranormal" things disappeared at all from that section of fringe and paranormal theories.. i guess it can be just some casual technic mistake of somebody who also tried to edit the article?

Merry Christmas - kind regards, Alex Mandel, PhD

P.S. Bzuk, many thanks for your kind attention to the comments i proposed. Again, sorry for the "inconvenient form" in which i tried to do it first time, and for my ignorance in Web-design.

One more point about the "Legacy" section... I was excited to see that the Liberty-ship "Amelia Earhart" from 1942 is mentioned there. Here the web-link to my current "online project" about the NEW ship to be named for Amelia Earhart: http://www.petitiononline.com/AMEP1897/petition.html

I just thought that you possibly can consider it as worth to be referred in the article about SS Amelia Earhart, or in the "general" Earhart article in the "Legacy" section... so just wanted to inform you, for such a case.

With respect - kind regards, Sincerely - Alex V. Mandel, PhD

Please always sign your posts with four tildes (whether you're logged on or not) and please do not ever indent paragraphs (with either tabs or spaces), since this invokes other Wiki-specific formatting code which I'm sure you did not intend, thanks. Gwen Gale 09:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research removed

Though I wholly agree with the pith of it, I have removed the following because it appears to derive from original research conducted by the anon user ("Alex V. Mandel, PhD") who added it. Gwen Gale 09:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As Alex V. Mandel, PhD, Earhart historian and researcher since 1982, states:

Conversely to many "conspiracy theories," persistently pushed by some authors, the real biography and documental information about Irene Bolam is not any "enigma" at all. The exact (supported by many authentic documents) story of her life was fully investigated by several Earhart researchers long ago. Particularly, yet in autumn 1982 - quite shortly after the death of Irene Bolam (July 7, 1982) the long "chain" of articles about this topic was published in the Woodbridge News (NJ) newspaper. It included some items from the Bolam's family archive... particularly the photos and greeting cards sent by her parents to her in the '40s, etc.

Paranormal Disappearance

There was a line in the paranormal section of her disappearance.

The line went: "...or she was flying over the gulf of Mexico when she got stuck in the Bermuda Triangle."

I'm not trying to be pedantic or anything but it didn't really make sense sitting at the end of a sentence, so I deleted it...is that okay? --Summoner Marc 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear a scientifically plausible explaination for it has been documented :) Gwen Gale 08:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

More Bolam

Gwen and Bzuk, Sorry, but i disagree with the removal of my comment about Bolam's life, parents etc., and don't think it was well thought action. The reason is not any kind of my "personal ambitions" etc., but just a following considerations.

The Bolam theory is mentioned in the article, although it is conclusively debunked by many scholar Earhart researchers and since long ago. I assume that probably the reason is the general principle of Wikipedia "to mention all opinions", etc. - based, as i assume, on the quite generally accepted modern principle of political correctness stating that "all ideas and opinions are equal" etc.

I, just personally, do not agree with this; it is my opinion that in REAL life all ideas are not equal of course, and never can be: just because of the idea based on pure speculation and controversial to logic and facts cannot be "equal" to the idea not making the contradiction with logic, and heavily substantiated with well documented and proven facts.

Anyway, the point is, that even this doubtful "principle of political correctness" was violated here.

The Bolam theory survived on the page.. but, the comment that included the alternate information - not just opinion but INFORMATION (about Bolam's life, her parents, her correspondence with them etc.) was removed. That's what i am disagree with.. as actually the article "suffered" the loss of not anybody's opinion but factual information because of this editing.

The comment was NOT based on my "original research" or so.. you are crediting me with too much merits. :) Actually this is a result of collective research of many serious and dedicated Earhart historians, that is "in public domain" since long ago, and very worth to be released to the general public interested about Earhart.. just for to help them to avoid to be misinformed by a "fringe theories" of all sorts.

Particularly, i referred to the "chain" of the published newspaper articles from autumn 1982, in which the part of these research results were published. So, i refered not to anybody's "opinion" or secret original research, after all, but to the published source.

I still think this factual information about Bolam's parents and background must be reinstated in the article, in some form. I don't care at all whether my name will be mentioned there, or not - being driven exclusively by the care about factual correctness and historical truth. Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD.

I must ask you again to do the following two things:

• PLEASE do not indent, by tab or spaces, your paragraphs. This invokes wiki-specific formatiing which you likely do not intend and makes your posts very difficult to read. Again, please do not indent.

• Please sign your posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~. When you have begun posting using these two standard bits of Wikipedia protocol, I'll be happy to discuss the thoroughly debunked Bolam myth, along with why your original research has been removed according to Wikipedia policy. Thanks! Gwen Gale 13:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen,Thanks for your kind comments; happy New Year! Yes of course it was not my intention to make any troubles about the formatting; i am just (sorry!) not very good in these things - but i am trying now to follow your advices... and hope my attempt will be succesful!...Again i want to note that that removed little "chapter" was NOT "my original research" at all but just a bit of factual information established in a collective effort of many Earhart researchers, and since the Bolam theory is presented on the page and these facts are directly revelant to the topic that was why i considered it as worthwhile to be mentioned - just as a fact direcly revelant to the historic credibility of the theory. As additional bit of information i can add that the mentioned publications included the photocopies of the Bolam family photos through the years since her childhood, particularly the postcard sent to her by her father in Oct.1, 1943, also cards sent by her both parents in 1916 when she attended boarding school...and many more authentic personal and family documents of Bolam listed and even photocopied. Another interesting and important bit of information is the computer voice analysis of Earhart and Bolam done by Dr.Oscar Tosi who conducted comparison testing of the tape recorded voices of Earhart and Bolam and has determined that the two women were not the same. Dr.Tosi was the Head of the Speech and Hearing Sciences Research Laboratory at Michigan State University's Institute of Voice Identification. The exact reference to the published source is: "Voiceprint Expert: Speakers different. Stories by SUE EMMONS, Woodbridge “News Tribune” suburban editor. December 17 1982, Middlesex County Publishing Co I think that possibly this particular fact (about voice analysis and its result) is also worthwhile to be at least mentioned in the chapter of the Article related to the Bolam theory. Kind Regards - Respectfully submitted, Alex V.Mandel, PhDAlex V Mandel 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not indenting, but signing with four tildes! It's been well established that Bolam wasn't Earhart and the article content already makes that clear, I don't see how adding much more about this trivial commercial down-market publishing ploy could be helpful never mind throwing in two or three more paragraphs on this would give it all far too much weight in a short encyclopedia article. I humbly suggest you skive your gleanings down to about two sentences, provide published secondary sources as supporting citations and keep your name out of the article to ensure that a) this isn't, due to an innocent misunderstanding on your part about how Wikipedia works, an attempt at self-promotion and b) your contribution doesn't smack of original research. Might I also humbly ask that you keep your posts short and sweet? You're preaching to the choir and the Bolam topic is barely encyclopedic to begin with. Thanks so much and happy new year to you too! Gwen Gale 16:32, 2 January 2007 UTC)

Gwen, thanks for your kind reply. To make it short but informative, i'd try to formulate it this way: "As it was established by many serious Earhart researchers, the real history of Irene Bolam, her family life and career is not any mystery but a well documented story corroborated by numerous historic records and photos. The computer voice analysis of Earhart and Bolam, done by Dr.Oscar Tosi - the Head of the Speech and Hearing Sciences Research Laboratory at Michigan State University's Institute of Voice Identification - also determined that the two women were not the same ["Voiceprint Expert: Speakers different". Stories by SUE EMMONS, Woodbridge “News Tribune” suburban editor. Dec 17 1982, Middlesex County Publishing Co.] Please would something like this sound acceptable? ...Yes, of course i readily agree about my name not to be mentioned in the article at all! I wrote about this since the very first attempt to participate in this Bolam discussion... and sincerely assure you again i am not interested at all in any kind of "self-promotion" but only trying to be useful for yours - and other's - attempts to make this article as exact and informative as possible. Thanks for your kind attention! - best regards, Alex MandelAlex V Mandel 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the cited fact that McGraw-Hill quickly withdrew the book from publication and came to an out of court settlement with Bolam over the matter is more than enough for this article.

However, if you want to add some stuff to the Bolam article itself, I'll be happy to help. Gwen Gale 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, thank you for your kind reply. I already added some material to the Bolam page, a few days ago... quite a massive information that is result of investigation of several Earhart researchers, and includes many biographical details about her, the dates, etc. You moved it all from the article itself to the "discussion" section, but i don't think it is such a "big deal" where exactly it will be; anyway, the information is presented and available for everybody who can be interested in the topic, and i think this is "what matters". In my "files" i have much more info about this "Bolam theory stuff" of course, - including for example the scanned photos of Bolam from different years, the detailed description of Dr. Tosi's computerized voice analysis, the scans from the Woodbridge "News Tribune" publications from 1982 (with photocopies of Bolam's authentic family and other documents, records and other such a things, etc. etc. etc.) - however, i don't know what exactly from all this may be useful for you for to upgrade the article, if you will want... and wouldn't it all be just "too much" for the conclusively debunked erroneous theory. Anyway, if you will want anything from this stuff, please feel free to contact me anytime (Email: mandel97ua@yahoo.com ), and i will try my best to help. Very kind regards! - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 14:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the Bolam article can be helpfully expanded with your secondary source stuff, which is now waiting on the talk page. When I have time I'll try working it into the Bolam article but please don't be shy about trying to do so yourself. I would only humbly suggest that you try hard to be very brief and succinct as possible on each point (this is an encyclopedia, not a book), don't indent anything and I (along with other editors I'm sure) will happily help you. Cheers. Gwen Gale 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, thank you for your kind reply. I think if to try to upgrade the Bolam article for a more complete presentation, we can use somehow that description of the Bolam's real life and career that i posted to the Bolam page a few days ago, and which you moved to the "discussion" section... that quoted text from the 2005 "Report" from the Earhart researcher's open Seminar. It includes a lot of factual details, dates, etc. about her life; and, being prepared as non-commercial historic research release, that report is in public domain and can be quoted without any restrictions etc. But if you think it is too long, or too detailed etc., please feel free to work with it "accordingly to your understanding", and shorten/remove what you consider as not very necessary for the encyclopedia format...Cheers! - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to move this discussion here, please :) Gwen Gale 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Amelia Earhart myths Due to the overly speculative nature of postings in this section which I believe takes away from an accurate and scholarly article, I propose to create a new page that will allow proponents to post and discuss the various conspiracy theories that abound surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. Gwen Gale and others, please respond with your votes and comments. There already is a "TinWiki" offshoot of Wikepedia that deals with these sorts of conjecture.Bzuk 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Support Weak support Gwen Gale 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

With the current factoring and cleanup of this section in the main article I'm also ok with it there.

Weak support. Material that fails WP:VERIFY (e.g. the entire 'paranormal' section as it stands) should simply be deleted; we should not be creating a separate article with looser standards of verifiability in the hope of distracting the tinfoil hats from this one. But given that the 'captured by the Japanese' theory currently gets three times as much space as the majority theory, WP:Undue weight is relevant here, so it does seem reasonable to split off some of that. It would also be good to expand the majority-viewpoint section a bit, since it's actually rather low on cites compared to the conspiracy theories (which is part of the reason for the imbalance). --Calair 06:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'll do it now (shorten the codswallop section, that is). As for the majority views section, I'm not sure expansion is needed there (the evidence is rather stark, they either ditched on the open sea or made it to Gardner following the LOP where Noonan didn't last long and Earhart may have later died a miserable death with only crabs the size of hedgehogs for company), though I do support elimination of the loony stuff altogether (or its exile to a separate article). Gwen Gale 08:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak support, for the same reasons given by Calair. -- Kaszeta 13:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Attached article

I have no problem with separating the Myths section into a separate article. Like it or not, speculation about the disappearance of Amelia Earhart is inextricably linked to her biography, just as people still want to know what happened to Judge Crater in the 1930s. Why not include the theories about her demise in an attached article such as we have for Notable Crashes as a sub-article under the Lockheed C-130 Hercules?

Mark Sublette 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

Oppose I can't imagine why you would want to break up this article. There are about 3000 words about her life and about 500 about so-called "conspiracy" theories. It's not as if the latter were overwhelming the integrity of the article. I'm adamantly opposed to creating a separate article. Hayford Peirce 04:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you are "adamantly opposed" to moving wholly unsupported claims from the text? Gwen Gale 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. If "conspiracy" claims are referenced, they should be included. Whether they're correct or not is another question. Hayford Peirce 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We disagree but it's not a big thing. Gwen Gale 08:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Why in the heck would you want to do this? The article is just fine.--MHRTWR 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight to codswallop, for starters. Gwen Gale 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as the current article does not need this. Please edit the article to be better rather than proposing a split like this. --Guinnog 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My take is, the editor who proposed it thought splitting off the unsupported material into a separate article would be a way to "edit the article to be better." Gwen Gale 08:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. My take is it wouldn't be a good way. --Guinnog 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Loading up an article with the ravings of people hoping to make a bit of money off wholly spurious and unsupported claims about famous dead people is so helpful, after all. Gwen Gale 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look to me like there's "overload of codswollop" (what is that, anyhow?). Personally, I'd rather have a complete single article than a lot of outlinks. Trekphiler 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only referring to the myths section, which we're discussing in this thread. As for codswallop, may I humbly suggest a dictionary? Gwen Gale 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose a flat-out removal of the myth section. These theories are currently being propagated in various media, such as the History Channel. Individuals wishing to learn more about Earhart online would likely end up at this article, where those theories should at least be mentioned and properly debunked as pure speculation. If it is acceptable for this article to contain a Popular Culture section (as do many articles), which doesn't contain a single actual fact about the topic, then the myths section is appropriate as well. --Dan East 02:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That, in my humble view, is the only reason for keeping them in the main article. I can only say I think their absence, along with a link to a "myths" article, would send the message even more starkly but I do understand why some editors might feel it would be easier for readers to keep everything in the main article. Gwen Gale 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This would be very helpful and comply with WP policy concerning undue weight. Gwen Gale 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I would recommend adding requests for citation to some claims. Myths section is nice but is still vulnerable to various new conspirational additions. - Darwinek 10:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the myths section is supportable or citeable as to fact, but only as to its dodgy pop-culture existence as unsupported myth/urban legend/spurious conjecture and fodder for down-market print and telly tabloids. Gwen Gale 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, there, ShutterBugTrekker. Your move of the "Popular culture" section is a bit precipitous considering the majority opinion has not yet decided for this action, in fact, revert it for now and check the discussion page to see where the survey is going. I believe it is the usual course of action to wait at least a week before making a major change that is being canvassed for support. At this point, I think the majority view is to keep the section within the main body since the article of Amelia Earhart is not large enough to warrant a restructuring or division into associated articles. Bzuk 01:12 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Jackie

I added "herself a pioneer woman aviator"; IIRC, she was also co-founder of the WASPs. Can somebody confirm? Trekphiler 10:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gossip

I've removed the following for discussion here:

According to Earhart's biographer Susan Butler the "love of her life" was Army Air Corps pilot Gene Vidal who became director of the bureau of air commerce under Franklin D. Roosevelt and was the father of the writer Gore Vidal.[1]

This is not terribly encyclopedic and may be giving undue weight to a particular PoV about her personal life (which by most scholarly accounts could be interpreted as "complex"). If other editors wish to see this sort of thing in the article, I would strongly suggest that a separate gossip or personal life section be included in the article, where a dozen sundry rumors and assertions about AE's love life can be aired in all their tabloid splendor. Gwen Gale 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

...The Susan Butler book is really outstanding (and without peers at all if about the Earhart family heritage and the early period of her life); however, apparently this particular statement about romantic affair between Earhart and Vidal is unsubstantiated and reflects rather the personal belief of the author Susan Butler. Other authoritative Earhart's biographers (like Mary Lovell and Doris Rich) are more skeptic, estimating these relationships rather as a close friendship between two people who just liked each other and shared a lot about their profession, then a romantic affair. In her book "Amelia Earhart: a Biography" (Dell Publishing edition, 1989), page 230, Rich argues: "Among Vidal's papers at the University of Wyoming is a leather wallet with three passport pictures in it. One is of a motherly looking, white-haired woman, a Mrs. Scovill, manager of a Santa Monica hotel where Vidal lived while working for TAT in 1929 and whose advice he sought later in finding a good summer camp for Gore [Vidal's son - AM]. The second picture is of Gore, and the third, Amelia. The collection is that of a family man, not a lover". It seemed for Gore Vidal - then a kid - that Earhart was "in love" about his father... but even he considered that "his father's affection for Amelia was platonic". Apparently, there is no any kind of "proofs" of the romantic nature of the Earhart-Vidal relationships ever presented except only these rememberings/beliefs of Gore Vidal from his childhood times... and that's why i am joining the opinions of Rich (and Gwen), and tend to think that probably there is no much reason to include such an unsubstantiated and doubtful hearsay about the delicate intimate aspects of Earhart's private life into the encyclopedic article, that must be rather strictly factual. Just my personal opinion of course. Also, i do agree with Gwen's position about the "Uncited "armchair" psychoanalysis". Kind Regards! - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncited "armchair" psychoanalysis

I've removed the following uncited passage for discussion here:

Some biographers have speculated that this history of disapproval and doubt followed Amelia throughout her childhood... and into her adult flying career.

Most historians recognize that pschoanalytical study of an historical subject who is not available for person-to-person interviews and other examination is, to put it mildly, dodgy. A wildly speculative remark like this might have its place in a full length biographical book treatment but I don't think it's at all helpful in an encyclopedia, especially given it's been up for over a year and no citations have appeared. Gwen Gale 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Myths, urban legends and unsupported claims

I have moved this sub-section to the popular culture section. Gwen Gale 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And I've summarized it and moved the bulk of it to a separate article altogether. ShutterBugTrekker 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, maybe a littel too fast, ShutterBugTrekker. Your move is a bit precipitous considering the majority opinion has not yet decided for this action, in fact, revert it for now and check the discussion page to see where the survey is going. I believe it is the usual course of action to wait at least a week before making a major change that is being canvassed for support. At this point, I think the majority view is to keep the section within the main body since the article of Amelia Earhart is not large enough to warrant a restructuring or division into associated articles. Bzuk 01:12 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I think I disagree with both moves. I've undone ShutterBugTrekker's change meantime. --Guinnog 06:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Following the discussion, I'm more or less indifferent to moving the material to a separate article. However I think it should remain in the popular culture section since these spurious claims are nothing more than artifacts of celebrity in popular culture. Gwen Gale 07:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I see what you are getting at of course, but I'm not convinced. It'd be worth discussing that too I suppose. Well done for all your other sterling work on improving the article. --Guinnog 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with it in the popular culture section so I leave it to you to start any further discussion. Meanwhile... thanks for your continued input on all this stuff! :) Gwen Gale 07:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Claims

Earhart and Fred Noonan disappeared in the Central Pacific Ocean, not the Western Pacific as described in your title.

There are three primary theories as to what happened to them: They "Crashed and Sank," the possibility of they're being picked up by the Japanese and taken to the Marshall Islands and then to Saipan where they died, and the possibility of coming down on Gardener (Nikumoro) Island in the Phoenix Group of Islands. Fred Goerner did not write that the plane came down on Saipan. He suggested they came down on or near Mili Atoll in the Marshall Islands and were taken by a Japanese boat to Jaluit, other Japanese-held islands and then to Saipan.

Ron Reuther, reuther@comcast.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bzuk (talk • contribs) 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Goerner's book is dismissed by any serious historian I've ever heard of. There's no evidence to support it. Gwen Gale 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Neta Snook

I am creating a number of articles that will link to the story of Amelia Earhart. The first is about Anita "Neta" Snook Southern who was Amelia's first flight instructor. Please check the page Neta Snook and tell me what you think. Bzuk 15:00 19 January 2007 (UTC).Bzuk, a good idea and excellent article! - i like it... Just one "addition" (in fact an "alternate opinion" - from Neta herself - about one incident mentioned in the text...). It is about that crash that Neta had with Amelia Earhart, during Earharts first days of flying. In the book "East to the Dawn - the Life of Amelia Earhart" - page 103 - the biographer Susan Butler wrote: "...they were taking off from nearby Goodyear field, a malfunctioning cylinder made the airster's rate of climb too slow to clear the grove of eucaliptus trees at the far end of the runway. Amelia, in the rear seat, instinctively put the nose up and went into a stall - the only thing to do. "I would have done the same," Neta admitted " - end of quotation. Thus, apparently, Neta was not really critical about Earhart's "skills" as they were shown during that incident.. as it was caused neither by some Neta's nor Amelia's lack of skills or mistake, but just by a mechanical malfuncion in the aircraft. It is known that the Kinner Airster plane they flew then had the new air-cooled engine of Bert Kinner's own construction - one of the first such engines developed in the USA - and the malfuncion of one of cylinders was a general tendency in this engine, until it was modernized after some months of experience and updates. Kind Regards! - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 08:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

I would invite other editors to look at the start of the article and comment on the relevance, length and content. Bzuk 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits have been in good faith and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop throwing presumptive and accusatory remarks into your edit summaries, thanks. Gwen Gale 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. I corrected the link to the Ninety-Nines. --Guinnog 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's far too long and sounds like a promotional blurb. When you've finished expanding the article body I plan on discussing the cheerleading PoV there too. If we need to start citing WP policy that's ok. Gwen Gale 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we can compromise on the length of the lead para. Her mysterious disappearance certainly needs to be mentioned there I think. --Guinnog 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The word mysterious is downmarket PoV and potentially very misleading. For example, the causes of her disappearance are fairly well understood and widely documented, no mystery there. Gwen Gale 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I've read over all of the versions now, and frankly I can't find much fault with any of them. But I really don't see what you consider to be PoV or OR Gwen. Can you be more specific? Maury 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I too am baffled by this. Are you still referring to an earlier version? I think I have a pretty good feel for both POV and OR and I can't see any of either in the first two paras. Hayford Peirce 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It reads like a press release written by GP. Gwen Gale 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I asked if you could be more specific and you replied with something that is painful less so. Do you have a specific objection here, or is it just the vague sort of feeling that you express here? What, precisely, do you think we should be doing to correct it? I still don't see anything remotely objectionable in any of these versions – including your own. But if your concern here really is what you say, that you believe it sounds like a "press release", then I think you have to consider the possibility that you're the only one that feels this way. I definitely get that feeling given the comments I read here. Maury 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand WP policy regarding consensus. This is a public wiki, after all. Meanwhile, do you not fully understand the sentence It reads like a press release written by GP? Gwen Gale 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, how fidonet circa 1985. Weak. Maury 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Nice try! Attack my style (in a manner which may violate WP:Civil, by the bye), rather than engage content. Meanwhile, this is the talk page for Wikipedia's Amelia Earhart article and I'm getting a strong impression here that you don't understand how a press release written by GP could relate to PoV regarding AE. Gwen Gale 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You continue to fail to provide any examples of the language you feel "reads like a press release". I cannot see anything of the sort. No one else can see it either, as far as I can surmise. You have also previously made claims about PoV and OR, and have failed to back these up either. I am coming to the conclusion that you either can't back it up, or perhaps that your involvement in this page is an example of trolling.

And you should at least try to disguise your attempts at insulting my reading ability if you're going to turn around and claim WP:Civil. Calling breach of ediquite on an admin is a risky sort of business, only the more so if you own comments could be construed as mildly insulting, as I did. Maury 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't insulting your reading ability at all. Where did you get that notion? Meanwhile please limit your discussion here to article content, thanks.

I did not say it "reads like a press release." I said it "reads like a press release written by GP."

As for "No one else can see it either," I'm being swarmed by wiki-friends of Bzuk who have been called here by Bzuk for "help" with "consensus," friends who have little or no history editing the article. I interpret this as gaming the system, a widely documented and deprecated tactic in public wikis. Gwen Gale 16:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting your explaination for any of your complaints about "press release", PoV or OR. Every one of your off-topic posts simply convinces me further that you are trolling. Maury 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please cite a diff which shows me making an off-topic post on this page. So far as trolls go (and I would remind you that you're the one who has introduced that volatile term into this discussion), you still haven't shown any understanding or interest in my concern that the header reads like a press release written by GP. Instead, you insist on making wholly unsupported attacks about my participation here. Please stick to the topic, ok? Do you know who GP was? Would you like me to elaborate? Gwen Gale 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting your explaination for any of your complaints about "press release", PoV or OR. *repeat as required* Maury 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Still not interested in who GP was? Either way please see the discussion below, which happily has refocused on the article topic where it belongs. Gwen Gale 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale: I don't understand what your gripe is with the second paragraph -- it is a simple declaration of many facts. I don't even remember how I ended up coming to this article a week or so ago -- my interest in A.E. is essentially null and I certainly have no irons in the fire in this particular article. But I like, and respect, and try to improve, solid Wiki articles that are well written and factual, and it looks to me as if you are disrupting this process for reasons that you keep to yourself. What is your motivation in making all these changes and in charging others (never yourself) of bad faith in making their edits? I myself am 100% disinterested (and uninterested, for that matter) in whatever contentions may exist between various factions of the Earhart debate. I am also a professional writer who knows, I think, the ins and outs of the English language and what word and phrases mean: and, given all that, I simply don't know why you are continually disrupting this article with your charges of POV, OR, PR that are, essentially, meaningless. Hayford Peirce 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cite the diffs where I accused anyone of bad faith.
• If you are 100% disinterested what are you doing here? (Aye, Bzuk asked you for some wiki "help" with "consensus")
• I find your use of the term "disruption" to be abusive and uncivil. Please stop that.
• I have explained my concerns at length both here and on my own talk page.
• You have not addressed my latest comment.

I'm sorry you find my participation on this page "meaningless" and that you are "100% disinterested." Might I respectfully suggest you find something more meaningful and interesting to do? I would also humbly suggest that you carefully review Wikipedia policy regarding article development and the use of edit summaries. Thanks for your input though. Anyway I still think the header is PoV and unencyclopedic, like a press release written by GP. I guess I should also mention that "all" these editors (3 maybe? 2 of whom insist they are "professional writers" but resist discussing content?) who have suddenly appeared on this talk page to support Bzuk were called to this page by Bzuk for that purpose and don't seem to have much history in editing the article. Gwen Gale 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Gwen, i do agree. For me the artice looks pretty objective and based on facts, and i just don't understand what the fuss is all about. Particularly i can't understand what it exactly means, this claim that the article looks as a "promotional written by GP". As you fairly noted, there is a simple declaration of many REAL facts. Or, somebody thinks that the article sounds "too good" about Earhart?... But, my God, what to do if this person (Earhart) really did what she did?... After all she really flew the Atlantic, really flew the Pacific, etc. etc. etc... was really well respected by many other contemporary top aviation professionals - like Wiley Post, General Leigh Wade, Jackie Cochran, Ruth Nichols, Louise Thaden, Kelley Johnson, Gene Vidal, Paul Collins, and many others. It all is nicely documented in theirs memories, diaries, books, articles, interviews. So what to do with all this?.. To invent specially some "dark side of Earhart", just for to make the artice "looking less promotional", or what???... Weird. I think the article is purely factual and pretty good just as it is. Alex V Mandel 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha I didn't say "promotional written by GP" nor did I say it sounds "too good" or that she wasn't respected. Gwen Gale 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A minor factual point

If one checks the History of this discussion page, one will see that on January 22nd I made my first edit to the A.E. article: I changed the "Category:Possibly living people" back to "Category:Year of death unknown" — I have a "Watch" on the "Possibly living people" article and came to A.E. because of that. I then put a watch on the A.E. article because of a minor but genuine interest in the topic. I was not "brought in" by Bzuk to "game" the system. Hayford Peirce 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the diff in which Bzuk asked you to drop by. However, I am not saying that you are gaming the system. Gwen Gale 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Who was GP?

Who was GP? Apparently, nobody currently participating in this discussion knows. This troubles me since I don't think I've ever encountered a serious historian specializing in AE who didn't immediately recognize and respond to those initials in the context of any discussion about her. I humbly ask that participants of this discussion review the link and meanwhile refrain from any continued, unsupported and unhelpful off-topic attacks on my behaviour here. I would also very strongly remind certain users that I have refrained from editing the article header since being swarmed over by all these new arrivals and will continue to do so. Gwen Gale 19:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Article length, content and intent

Length

The notation "This page is 51 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." has now placed the Amelia Earhart Wikipedia article into the category of a major article at least in length. Compared to other significant figures' biographical articles, here are some following statistics: Thomas Jefferson: 75 kilobytes long, Abraham Lincoln: 84 kilobytes long, Charles Lindbergh: 46 kilobytes and Wright Brothers: 62 kilobytes long. The introductory paragraphs of each of these major biographies are similar: Thomas Jefferson: 250 words, Abraham Lincoln: 147 words, Charles Lindbergh: 81 words, Wright Brothers: 199 words. Previous to the current edit, the introductory paragraph in the Amelia Earhart article was 49 words. The current revision is 97 words which is entirely consistent with the length of other biographical articles on Wikipedia.

Content

The qualifications for a well-researched, scholarly article may partly be attributed to the use of verifiable statements. In the Amelia Earhart article, 50 statements are cited with proper citations (Harvard Style) with 22 books listed as references (MLA style). In addition, 12 websites/internet sources have been provided. This list of resources is entirely consistent with the other aforementioned biographical articles. Anyone who wants to check the Wikipedia articles can do the count, but generally, there are substantive reference lists including primary sources.

Intent

There are "five pillars" of Wikipedia contributions. Briefly (or not so briefly), they are:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research."
2. Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.
3. Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
4. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
5. Wikipedia has a code of conduct:

• Respect your fellow Wikipedians
• Be civil
• Be open and welcoming
• Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations
• Stay cool when the editing gets hot
• Avoid edit wars
• Act in good faith and assume good faith on the part of others
• Follow the three-revert rule
• Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

I consider all the edits in the Amelia Earhart article (save the obvious vandalism) to be in "good faith" and have contributed to making the document a more scholarly and interesting account of an iconic figure in history. If necessary, When a conflict arises as to which editorial version is the most neutral, we (as a group) can declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed and hammer out details on this talk/discussion page and, if needed, follow dispute resolution.

I sincerly regret the influx of commentary that has arisen over a very minor edit of the introductory paragraph into two paragraphs. I have attempted to redress this via a citing of my sources that will hopefully address any issues of errors, ommissions, inaccurate, overly verbiose statements or lack of neutrality in my editorial submissions. Again, I welcome any other editor "writing over" the entry. FYI, I will now revert to my other life as a writer and come back to this article when things are a little "cooler."Bzuk 20:37 24 January 2007 (UTC).

So, general discussion about the header

Hey Bzuk, I think you've done a wonderful job in adding tonnes (so to speak) of sourced detail and context to this article. My concern about the intro (and some of the sub-section titles only) is that their tone and spin inadvertantly perpetuate some of the old well-meaning publicity myths about AE, most of which can be traced back to her husband GP's relentless publicity and product endorsement campaigns put together on her behalf. AE broke many records, blazed many trails and took part in several historic deeds. She was highly intelligent, brave, motivated and independent. I admire her, lots. However, she was not a particularly skilled pilot and the aviation community has long recognized this. She was an adequate pilot, mostly. Moreover, modern scholarship has identified very poor planning as the cause of her disappearance: Many small errors and ommissions ultimately combined over the shadow dappled Pacific near Howland Island, culminating in Earhart and Noonan's inability to spot that flat, dark sliver of coral. It is misleading to imply in the header that she won skeins of flying awards for her ability as a pilot. She won them for her ability to take huge risks and survive for a time and I think she likely knew that. Gwen Gale 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't make any more comments about this tone or intended tone issue. However, there are well-documented references to the flying ability of Amelia Earhart. The grouping of her aviation achievements with the abortive final flight connects her setting out on a last vain-glorious attempt to remain in the public eye. I am not unware that Amelia's drive and ambition in the last years clouded her judgement and overwhelmed her skills, which were adequate but not superlative. She left the trailing antenna off because she was not just offloading weight, she was unable to use it properly and thought it was a distraction. Her arguments with Noonan on the last flight caused a navigational error that landed her miles off course in reaching Africa. Her tutoring from Paul Mantz left him exasperated as he wrestled with her obstinent refusal to learn modern radio communication. There are some theories that the jumbled radio messages resulted from the use of the wrong frequencies between the Electra and the Itasca.

If you read my article on Neta Snook, you will note that I introduce the concerns that Neta had over Amelia's skills. Her attempt to set a world altitude record also drew criticisms from fellow pilots at Kinner Field, many more experienced than Earhart chastised her for not only a fool-hardy stunt of spinning through a cloud bank but some openly questioned that she inadvertedly entered into the spin. (Lovell 1989). Earhart's many crashes are also testament to sloppiness in flying. As a pilot myself, I know that there is a wide range of "hand-foot-eye" skills in the general flying fraternity. Amelia could fly adequately but throughout her flying career, she constantly sought out experienced pilots to tutor her on techniques, new equipment and other aspects of flying. Make no doubt, I am aware of the assessment of Earhart's skills by her contemporaries. If you want to bring up an aviator of her era that earned the accolades of "great pilot," I would recommend Jackie Cochran (and Ruth Nichols- both of whom also set many aviation records). Bzuk 21:12 24 January 2007 (UTC).

So perhaps we should at least make sure the header doesn't mistakenly, through zeal, lack or whatever, lead readers to believe she's remembered for her piloting skill, but many other meed things? Gwen Gale 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex V Mandel, please start your posts by skipping (preferably with a double space) to another line from the preceding comment, thanks. Gwen Gale 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Gwen, i tried with a several "spaces" used, but apparently it doesn't work... still, my comment goes to be added just "immediately" and without any (desirable) space separating it somehow from the preceding text.. very sorry... if you know how to deal with this please instruct... sorry if i'm too stupid about these things.. but you can see, i'm at least trying to learn... kind regards! - Alex V Mandel 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen and Bzuk, please let me propose some comments on this topic... The aviation career of Earhart continued for about 16 years, and the documented facts of this career rather suggests to conclude that she was competent and skilled aviation professional, whose quality was well respected and admitted by many authoritative contemporary aviation professionals who knew Earhart well, flew with her, and whose own competence and professionalism was beyond any doubts. This "listing" includes Wiley Post, Jackie Cochran, Paul Collins, Leigh Wade, Louise Thaden, Kelly Johnson, Gene Vidal, Ruth Nichols and others. As General Leigh Wade remembered about Earhart, "She was a born flier, with a delicate touch on the stick".

In 1929, during the airshow in Buffalo, Earhart flew - during one day - several different planes that she saw that day for the first time in her life… Whether it was possible for a not-enough-skilled, or bad, or unqualified or "unnatural" pilot?… I don't think so. Also, again in contrary to the almost "canonized" urban legend still circulating, the historic fact is that the number and nature of Earhart's accidents during her 16-year aviation career was surprisingly small - especially for the "type" of flying she was involved in, and especially in comparison with some other contemporary pilots with a similar nature of their flying. Just reminding.. the Great (undoubtfully and unconditionally great - no disrespectful irony here!) Colonel Lindbergh lost at least 4 planes in flight, jumping out with a parachute... while Earhart never had such an accidents at all. For the matter of fact, actually there were just 2 main "original sources" of the statements about Earhart's alleged "lack of skills" etc.

One of them was the Earhart's strong rival Elinor Smith - undoubtedly a competent, prominent and skillful aviatrix too. However the factor of jealosy is alas too obvious in her comments, when she repeatedly tried to discredit Earhart at any opportunity (interviews, documentaries, articles etc.). It prompts to accept her opinion with a reasonable amount of skepticism. The second person who criticized Earhart's abilities was Paul Mantz – her former “technical advisor” who was however alienated (in fact fired) from a final stages of preparations for the World Flight.

Undoubtfully a brilliant 1st class pilot, Mantz however had too much powerful ego alas and it made him a difficult person for a teamwork sometimes. Anyway the exact, factual technical reason of the Earhart's March 1937 Hawaii groundloop was actually never completely researched, so the Mantz' declared opinion about Earhart's "guilt" about it still remains in fact just a speculation. Just BTW, there are more ones about it... particularly, another version discussed in the circles of Earhart researchers suggests some "contribution" of Mantz himself into this groundloop accident. It is known that actually it was Mantz who made the previous landing in this plane, during the California- Hawaii leg; the landing was rough, and could damage/weaken the landing gear.

If about Earhart's Electra and her "level of training" in it, it is known that Earhart flew this Electra for a year – since summer of 1936, when it was delivered to her. She spent a lot of time in it, flew it across the country several times, and flew it in company with other good professionals, like Jackie Cochran (who gave a perfect description of her flying with Earhart in that plane in her memories published in 1954, and stated that Earhart was a fully competent and skilled pilot). Kelly Johnson, the designer of the plane, also flew in it with her, and also said that Earhart was good, skillful and “sensitive” pilot. It is a reasonable point - made by several researchers - that the potential value of the new radio equipment and navigational technologies could be seriously underestimated during the planning and preparations for the Earhart's last flight. But very possibly the reason was that for such a long and complex flight (through the remote areas where the quick technical support in case of any damage of the the radio-equipment would be problematic) Earhart was just "reasonably conservative" and simply had more belief in the skills of her navigator Noonan - one of the most experienced navigators of the era - than in the relatively new radio navigation technologies.

And, it must be noted that until the ill-fated Lae-Howland leg their formula of success" obviously worked quite satisfactory. It is difficult to say what exactly went wrong during this leg, - just because of nobody was there in cockpit with Earhart and Noonan, for to see and tell us. So in fact we can only guess. And, at least for me, it seems not much reasonable to doubt the general Earhart's piloting qualities and competence, firmly proven by her previous 16-year career and unimpeachable achievements, on the base of speculative kind of arguments, theorietic guesses, and unfairly "canonized" but factually unsubstantiated "urban legends". So, is there any need to add any remark in the article about Earhart's as if "doubtful" (or so) flying skills?.. I am sure it would be plain wrong. It would mean, in fact, a "promotion" of "urban myths" in the encyclopedic article, that must be purely factual... and, since the facts rather argues against the "urban myth", i think the myth must be simply ignored.. doesn't matter how many times it was repeated in the media during the last 70 years. Let's be just strictly factual, i'd suggest! :> Kind Regards - Alex V Mandel 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Mantz was a Hollywood stunt pilot and consultant. In the 1930s, the bleeding edges of aviation still hovered near the true "daredevil" realm. Ultimately, AE's world flight wasn't much more than a book flogging stunt and she mentioned the likelihood of "retirement" after it was done. Both Earhart's and Mantz's accounts of the groundloop are questioned. After the groundloop incident, Mantz pulled out of the project and distanced himself from Earhart. My impression is the feeling was mutual, as they say. Meanwhile it's hard to find citations supporting any notion that Earhart was an exceptional pilot. She was many wonderful and noteworthy things, as I've said, but her luck ran out over Howland Island. Gwen Gale 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

In rereading the introductory paragraphs, (following)

Amelia Mary Earhart July 24, 1897 – missing as of July 2, 1937 was a noted American aviator whose aviation career included many milestones. The first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic, after setting numerous records, Earhart disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937.

Earhart was an influential early female pilot instrumental in the formation of The Ninety-Nines, a women's pilots' organization. Among her many awards and achievements, Earhart was the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross. Intense public fascination with her life, career and ultimate disappearance continues to this day.

– there is no direct reference to her flying abilities or skills rather her accomplishments as a pilot which are undiminished.

It may be noteworthy later in the article to comment on Earhart's flying abilities, but as you can see in the Mandel comment above, there is no consensus on the issue. Paul Mantz was a very fine pilot who appreciated Amelia's "feel" for flying. (Lovell 1989, p. 220.) Yet, at the same time, in his tutelage of Amelia, he was frustrated with "her seeming inability to grasp what to him were fundamentals of flying" (Lovell 1989, p. 232.) and actually installed a Link trainer in his hangar at Burbank for Amelia to gain instrument flying experience. Paul was "never entirely satisfied with her ability to fly the Electra, despite his personal respect for her." (Lovell 1989, p. 233.) Bzuk 23:44 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Further to the above

Gwen and Bzuk, thanks for your so quick replies and comments. I saw quite many authoritative and credible quotes of the competent contemporaries describing Earhart as a competent and skillful flier. The good example is the mentioned Leigh Wade's memories ("Amelia Earhart" by Doris L. Rich - page 85; also "Flying with Leight Wade" -Interview with Maj.Gen.Leigh Wade, Jan 14,1985). Also please see the memories of Jackie Cochran (published in 1954) where she shares her impressions about Earhart's flying abilities, and it is rather positive and even complimentary. And it goes on and on... i have many such "accounts" (sorry! - 20+ years of digging about Earhart :>)

A few more points on Mantz... no smallest doubts he was a highly competent and skilled "top-league" pilot.. but as i wrote there are quite serious reasons to accept his publicly expressed opinions on Earhart not without some "bit of reasonable skepticism"...and at least don't treat it as a gospel. Also, it's known that Mantz's general opinion about women pilots wasn't much respective but rather colored by some chauvinistic attitude. For example about Jackie Cochran he said that "she never won a race or finished a flight in her life" – and he said this after she did both (!) (see D.Rich, 1991, pp 240-241).

I think it speaks volumes. BTW, wanted to propose some material for this article... a "timeline" of all the Earhart's moving, flying, activities etc. - almost "day by day" - (sometimes really day by day) during the period 1928-1937. I gradually composed it while researching about her life and career... but it would be too detailed of course for the encyclopedic article... so it would be good if you would just look at this and will decide whether something of this may be useful to upgrade the artice somehow. My Email is mandel97ua@yahoo.com - so please let me know if you or Bzuk are interested and I will share it anytime. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I think that all relevant information about the remarkable woman and aviator is important- just remember the one caution is that "no original research" is the basis of Wikipedia articles. However, your use of referenced works would be perfectly acceptable. In a way, I have been heartened by the discussion around what still remains, an enigmatic and interesting historical figure. Imagine, 60 years after her disappearance, people are still trying to sort out the details of what was a remarkably short career. I have taken the priviledge (affront) to slightly alter the presentation of your commentary, merely to have it read more ledgibly. Bzuk 4:46 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, thank you for your kind reply and for improving my commentary for a "more readable" view. Please write to my Email address (so i would have yours address) and i will send the document for your review... of course i can send it for Gwen too. Yes, of course it is not "original research" in true sense of the word, as it is based on the published sources about Earhart; the proper listing of used sources is a part of the document... you will see. Kind Regards! - Alex V Mandel 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Header

Ok y'all, so I still think the header reads like a press release written by GP :) So am I like, blown off here or can we talk about it. I mean, the "many awards" language which could imply extraordinary flying skill to uninformed readers and the 99s blurb, which to me reads like a blurb and which I don't think is notable enough for a header. Gwen Gale 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, it seems for me the header - just as it is now - represents nothing but cold factual reality. All that is written there, are pure facts. And thet's main, most important thing. Earhart really was a principal figure in the history of 99s... so why this fact being mentioned must be interpreted in some "promotional" sense?... It's just an objective reality. Also, the existing statements about Earhart's "lack of skills" etc. are in fact just a personal opinions of a very few people. And, because of the reasons i tried to present above, 1) these few opinions are of doubtful objectivity and historic credibility; and 2) anyway, just if to "count", these few negative opinions would be "overweighted" by more significant number of positive opinions about Earhart's pilot's quality (from the contemporary competent aviation professionals listed above). Anyway, whether there is any sense to make the Header (of the encyclopedic article) the "subject of influence" of alternate subjective opinions, even if not to discuss at all their "relative crdibility"? I don't think so... it still seems for me that something like this must be most carefully avoided, and ONLY well confirmed credible and checkable historic facts are worth to be included into the Header of the encyclopedic article written for general educational purposes. This is exactly what is in this header now... and that's why i consider it as perfectly proper and accurate. Just my personal opinion of course :> Kind regards - Alex V Mandel 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about things like undue weight and ambiguity and by the bye, I have never used the word "promotional" in discussing my concerns about this header. Gwen Gale 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, sorry if I misinterpreted something! :) It's just how I interpreted the nature of your concerns after reading your phrase "I still think the header reads like a press release written by GP :) " Kind Regards - Alex V Mandel 16:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Put another way (by this unabashed admirer of AE), I would ask, who wants young girls to think that taking extreme risks with life and limb by breaking aviation performance records at a young age is a viable path to a career as a highly skilled aviator? One way or another, AE did not receive those awards for exceptional skill as a pilot, but for her ability to survive exceptional risks (still quite a notable series of accomplishments, for feminism and otherwise). Gwen Gale 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, thanks for your kind reply... a few comments is possible: 1) I tend to think that the goal of the encyclopedic article written for "general reference" and educational purposes, is not to "make any specially planned effect" on the minds of young girls, young boys, or any other group of people... This will be already a "politic play", in a sense...some attempt to "influence the direction of thinking" of somebody, somehow... while the goal of such an article - in my opinion - must be EXCLUSIVELY a representation of the real facts in a most historically accurate way, carefully avoiding any subjective opinions presented as facts - in favor of real, documented, checkable and "unimpeachable" hard facts. 2) You wrote: "AE did not receive those awards for exceptional skill as a pilot, but for her ability to survive exceptional risks" - sorry Gwen, but it is exactly your subjective interpretation of the fact, not the fact itself. Every award is always given to the person with some "proclamation" - in a properly prepared official documents clearly stating about what for exactly the person was awarded. So, i would ask... whether it was officially written somewhere - and can be proven by official records - that AE "did not receive those awards for exceptional skill as a pilot, but for her ability to survive exceptional risks"?... Obviously not.. sorry but i am pretty sure about this. And it is exactly why i am saying that it is your subjective opinion - it's another deal how correct one... but not something that can be called as "fact" proper to be used as it in the Encyclopedy. Just for example, many people (sorry but including me too) are having another opinion on this... and this opinion is, that the things AE did during her 16-year flying career - including, particularly, her "ability to survive exceptional risks" - naturally included and assumed the exceptional piloting skills. Without having it, those achievements would not be possible, and it is just these done achievements - taken as hard facts - for what exactly she was awarded... I think this our discussion is a perfect example why the subjective opinions are highly undesirable for to be included into the Encyclopedic article. We all are entitled to our pet opinions and "interpretations"... where the facts are simple, and the goal of the article is just to list them most accurately... As usually, just my personal opinion. :> Kind Regards - Alex V Mandel 17:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The header is potentially misleading and therefore not accurate. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion. Within the aviation comunity, AE's piloting skills are considered to have been no more than adequate. Meanwhile there is no need for you to be sorry about your input. Gwen Gale 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, thank you for your kind reply...What i am feeling a bit "sorry" is that i am forced to expres some certain disagreement with a Colleague... not "about my input" :) Back to the topic. 1) Since the header is purely factual (i.e. does not include anything that wouldn't be just a bare checkable historic facts), i don't think it is somehow "misleading"... and, generally, the estimation "misleading" is the subjective interpretation again. I still think that the only criteria of whether the text is proper for to be included in Encyclopedia or not is its strict factual accuracy... not any considerations about what thoughts it may suggeest to this or that people, etc. Since we are starting to consider something like THIS, we are starting to "play politics" i think - INSTEAD of being just "accurately informative", as any Encyclopedic pusposes obviously demands. 2) It is difficult to agree with the statement that "...within the aviation comunity, AE's piloting skills are considered to have been no more than adequate". Please who exactly ever issued this "verdict" as some "official opinion on Earhart of the aviation community"?... Whether can anybody present such a source about Earhart that is generally admitted as some "general opinion of the aviation community", and where such an opinion is claimed and somehow substatiated by facts?... Obviously not. So, it is just a personal subjective opinion again. It is based, i think, largely on the opinions of just two persons (Elinor Smith and Paul Mantz) - uncritically accepted, endlessly repeated and unfairly "canonized" by the media, and even some serious authors (Lovell). Simultaneously, the positive and even complimentary opinions of MANY other "top league" aviation professionals - like Wiley Post, Jackie Cochran, Ruth Nichols, Kelley Johnson, Leigh Wade, Paul Collins, and many others - are (quite strangely) almost completely ignored, when any discussion starts about the "Earhart's flying skills". Very sorry, but such an access seems for me as cortainly not undbiased... and i still can't understand why exactly the quite unreliable (see above) claims of Smith and Mantz must "overweight" the much more "massive" evidence supporting tyhe alternate opinion, and influence somehow the "tone" of the Encyclopedic article - that must be strictly, exclusively factual... "Give people the FACTS.. JUST the facts... BARE facts... they will make their own conclusions THEMSELVES" - that's in what i believe strongly... Kind Regards! - Alex V Mandel 18:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Mantz isn't all that respected as a pilot or a consultant, other than by a handful of stunt people. I haven't referred to any "verdicts." The header doesn't accomplish what you suggest. Gwen Gale 18:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, i referred to Mantz (and Smith) just because of they were the main actual primary sources of statements about some "lack of skills" in Earhart... while many others who flew with her obviously had a different opinion. Anyway, i don't want to seem unreasonably and unnecessarily stubborn and unconstructive... so NATURALLY i'm not trying to say that the header (and the article) is absolutely 100% "eternal ideal" and can't be a matter of any further improvements. So the ONLY thing i am arguing for is to avoid to include into the header (and the article) any subjective personal opinions, views, or "interpretations", presented as facts - and especially such ones that can be "effectively opposed" (or even counterweighted) with the historically credible counter-evidence. Instead, i just propose to stay with the purely historic, well documented things that are factually proven beyond the reasonable doubt and can work well - accordingly to the general goal of the Encyclopedy - for to inform the readers in strictly accurate and informative way. Very hope you can understand. Kind Regards! - very sincerely, Alex V Mandel 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In my experience Mantz (for example) isn't a primary source for much of anything reliable about aviation. As I said before, my concerns have to do with undue weight and ambiguity in the header (along with a few nitpicks about section titles). Gwen Gale 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage (suggestion)

Dear Colleagues, I propose to remove (did it now...) the phrase "Earhart asked for an open marriage", as technically incorrect and rather the "interpretation" then the fact. The fact is that there is no any word at all in the original Earhart's pre-nup letter neither about any "open marriage" nor the "freedom to engage in extramarital sexual relationships" that the open marriage concept assumes - accordingly to the Wikipedia "Open Marriage" article and the definition given there. So, just staying strictly factual, Earhart never "asked for an open marriage" in that letter. It is rather just one of possible interpretations of us the modern people, well aware about "sexual revolution" of 60s and all its ideas, concepts and the ways to understand and interprete words and things. It seems for me that the original quote from original Earhart's letter (that must stay in the text) would "work better" - presenting the authentic Earhart's position in clear way and in her own original words, permitting everybody to build the own opinion/conclusion. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Open marriage" with its current meaning seems to date from around the 1960s, although the notion likely goes back centuries (there are plenty of documented examples) if not much longer. Either way, I think the use of this phrase or any other like it in the context of AE should be supported by a citation if it's to be put back into the article. Meanwhile I see no need to "permit" "everybody" to "build" their own opinions or whatever. In encyclopedic terms, if an aspect of AE's life is related to her notability and can be supported by citations, it belongs in the article. If not, it doesn't belong. Gwen Gale 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to the Earhart prenuptial agreement

There is some conjecture not only about the modern concept of the "open marriage" and how it applied to Amelia Earhart as well as some recent revelations from the Putnam Binney family that Amelia's marriage was much more conventional than previously regarded. There is a lot of speculation of Amelia's daliances with Gene Vidal and Paul Mantz, but these remain mere conjecture. I cannot find any instances of G.P. Putnam being unfaithful during their marriage although he remarried shortly after Amelia was declared officially dead in 1939. She was reputedly a good "mother" to her adopted children and there was genuine affection between the two parents, notes one of their grandchildren. This information is derived from a television interview with the surviving Putnam children on the 60th anniversary of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. She specifically addressed the issue of infidelity and offered that she had seen no evidence of it.

The interview subject was Sally Putnam Chapman, the granddaughter of Earhart's husband, George Putnam and one of the foremost scholars on the Earhart legacy. This historian has documented Earhart's life with great precision and has recently donated 492 items from both Amelia Earhart and George Putnam to Purdue (University) Libraries' Earhart collection, including rarely seen personal and private papers such as poems, a flight log and a prenuptial agreement.

An interesting note about the prenuptial agreement that is most often referenced. The Purdue letter is a typewritten copy that was made sometime after the original two-page (four-sided), hand-written letter that Amelia gave GPP (in the original, an inadvertant slip addresses him as Gyp [sic]). The first letter was written in pencil on gray stationary and had many corrections including crossed out words. It had the header "The Square House, Noank, Connecticut" which is also in variance with the typewritten copy. Both GPP and AE had spent the weekend (February 7-8, 1931) together at George's mother's home- "The Square House" and before the judge, Judge Anderson, a family friend, arrived on Saturday, the date of the wedding, Amelia handed her future spouse the "prenups" letter. Reference: Lovell 1989, p.165-166. Quote: "It was pencilled longhand... a slip or two in spelling meticulously corrected." The later typewritten note has the word medieval incorrectly spelled as "midaevil." The original note has some slight variances in the header, use of commas and the saluation but is spelled correctly. Bzuk 04:09 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism2

The last few days have been marked with rampant vandalism, some of it traced to a school district in Minnesota but others are masquerading behind unknown ip addresses. Can I ask all editors who are particularly interested in preserving the integrity of this article, to be on the alert and revert all examples of vandalism. Bzuk 22:09 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Gwen, I'm glad to see you are still in the business of swatting vandals. Bzuk 02:49 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Hm, something tells me this may have to do with Earhart coming up in some middle school teaching module each February, same thing happened last year (see other "vandalism" item on this page). Gwen Gale 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposing some flying/health topics updates

Many thanks for Bzuk for adding the Lovell link about AE's accumulated (by 1927) hours of flying! ...I just thought it is rather related to the first paragraph of the "Boston" Chapter (about her flying itself)... so i placed the link there. Also, i thought that such info about her accumulated hours of flying is generally important and directly revelant to the Chapter's text (and to the general reason why Earhart deserves the Wikipedia page! - that is exactly her flying)... so, i added the text of the Bzuk's "reference" to Lovell into the text itself. Also, i propose to modify a bit the paragraph about her California/Boston experience, adding - just in brief - the info about her persisting health problems and sinus surgeries. Accordingly to biographies (Lovell, Rich, etc.) it was significant and seriously influenced Earhart's life and activities in some periods: sometimes even on the airfield she was forced to wear a bandage on her cheek that covered the tiny tube - inserted "to drain the chronic abscess in the antrum that continued to plague her" (Rich, p.31-32). Also, i added the mentioning of Earhart's second period in Columbia University, her plans about MIT, and why she was forced to abandon it all (the finances of the family; D.Rich, p.41). And also, i tried to modify a bit the last paragraph of the "Family Fortunes" chapter, adding there the exact reason of her hospitalization in 1918 (that sinus infection) and the first Earhart's surgery caused by it - that, accordingly to biographers, was so serios that it "made her semi-invalide" (D.Rich, p.20) for some time. I added the proposed corrections to the article text... Kind regards! - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

The article has been semi-protected due to heavy petty vandalism and grafitti over the past few days. The topic has likely seasonally come up in some canned, standardized learning modules in middle schools. Same thing happened last February. Gwen Gale 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen, I did trace some of the miscreants to a school district in Anoka, Minnesota so you may be right about who the "perps" are (if their childish messages didn't also give them away). Bzuk 21:12 15 February 2007 (UTC).

You know, I deal with it as no more than noise on a public wiki, though it got loud enough lately that the sprotect will help. Gwen Gale 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pioneering achievements

Using this phrase in the header could be misleading. While AE was indeed a highly visible trailblazer for the role of women in aviation and broke many aviation records, the aviation community recognizes her competent piloting skills but there are no available citations, to my knowledge, crediting her with developing new flying techniques and certainly none which would imply her skills exceeded those of other notable female pilots of the era. Also of note, she never held a paying aviation job in her life. She won some prize money and had income from product endorsements and book sales, much of which can be credited to the promotional skills of her husband GP. This is not to say she was untalented or lacking: She was resourceful, brave, intelligent and many other helpful and wonderful things, but crediting her with "pioneering achievements in aviation" implies specific professional contributions she did not make. Gwen Gale 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Earhart’s piloting skills were average at best." Gillespie, Ric, chapter 4, Finding Amelia: The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance, Naval Institute Press 2006 Gwen Gale 03:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pioneer: 1. One who ventures into unknown or unclaimed territory. 2. One who opens up new areas of thought, research or development: e.g. a pioneer in aviation. Amelia is considered a pioneering woman aviator by at least 170,000 hits on Google alone, but seriously, she was one of the first women to receive a flying license, she also set seven national and international speed and distance records, was among the first aviators to promote commercial air travel through the development of a passenger airline service in 1929, she represented Transcontinental Air Transport (TAT), invested time and money in setting up the first regional shuttle service between New York and Washington, DC. The Amelia Earhart Museum describes her as "She is still remembered as the outstanding female pilot of her time." The Civil Air Patrol characterizes their Amelia Earhart award as "The Amelia Earhart Award has existed since 1964. This award honors the late Amelia Earhart, aviatrix, advocate, and pioneer, who set many records for women aviators in aviation's infancy, and who was lost while attempting to be the first woman to circumnavigate the globe." Linda Finch who recreated her world flight is quoted as "Amelia Earhart, in an era when men dominated aviation, she was truly a pioneer." Author Henry M. Holden, October 1999, is quoted on the continuing mystery of the disappearance of pioneer aviator, Amelia Earhart. Author Jim Cornish is his article also frames his story of Earhart with the title: "Amelia Earhart: Pioneer Female Aviator." Author Virginia Morell in a January 1998 article, states "Amelia Earhart’s untimely death helped assure that her pioneering achievements in the cockpit would not be forgotten." Bzuk 3:51 25 February 2007 (UTC).

• Her representation of TAT was as a commission salesperson selling airplanes, it was not an aviation job.
• To my knowledge, the Amelia Earhart Museum is not qualified to evaluate the qualifications of pilots, but may be very qualified to promote AE's memory. This is not a credible source for supporting any assertions about her skills as a pilot.
• The Civil Air Patrol mentions she "set many records for women aviators" and characterizes her as an advocate but not as a skilled pilot.
• Finch called AE a pioneer... of what?
• Same with Holden and Morell, yes, she was a pioneer for women's rights and women's roles in aviation. Purdue University even hired her as a counseler on women's careers. Note, they did not hire her as a piloting instructer or lecturer.

Her work at TAT was as a consultant who assisted in scheduling and routes as well as marketing. The Amelia Earhart Museum is a reputable museum with a large collection devoted to Amelia's life and legacy. The Civil Air Patrol award states she "set many records for women aviators" and recognizes her achievements. Linda Finch is not only a modern counterpart to Earhart who called AE a pioneer of aviation, she is also acknowledged as an expert in Amelia's life and achievements. Purdue University did hire Earhart as a counseler on women's careers however her job was outlined by Edward C. Elliott, the President of Purdue as a being "a visiting faculty member to counsel women and a technical advisor to the Department of Aeronautics." Purdue would later purchase the Lockheed Model 10 Electra through the Amelia Earhart Fund for Aeronautical Research. (Goldstein and Dillon) Bzuk 5:16 27 February 2007 (UTC).

The assertion that she made "pioneering achievements in aviation" could lead an uninformed reader to think this had something to do with extraordinary piloting skills. I suggest this either be left out of the article, or that we add the supported statement, "Earhart’s piloting skills were average at best." Gwen Gale 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The pioneering achievements that Amelia made to aviation included setting new records, being an advocate for the development of aviation and in being a role model for women to enter the industry. The fact that her flying skills may not have been extraordinary in no way diminishes her achievements in the cockpit. (A number of assessments of Amelia's piloting skills are provided in the Wikipedia article in appropriate places.) Irregardless of her "hand-eye" skills, there are numerous researchers, historians and aviation experts that consider her importance to the formative period of flight. Dr. Donald Goldstein and Katherine Dillon carefully lay out her contributions in this way, "Today it is difficult to realize just how much of a pioneer she was. We doubt if she saw herself in that light. She took up flying, not in defiance or rebellion, but 'for the fun if it'- a favorite phrase of hers. She lacked the competitive instinct that drove many other fliers and did not particularly care whether she won or lost a race. What she did care about, ardently, was the future of aviation." After her celebrity opened doors, Doris Rich, another biographer, notes Amelia's role in the TWA as "she was hired as an assistant to the general manager of the airline;" her job would be to "sell" airline travel not airplanes. TAT was called the "Lindbergh Line" because the airline had also hired Charles Lindbergh to act as another consultant and spokesperson. Goldstein and Dillon describe Amelia's job as in helping "arrange schedules" but also to "sell flying to women." The routes she was instrumental in developing are still the basis of the modern-day TWA route structure.

The Amelia Earhart Museum is a very reputable museum that is a storehouse of material relating to the life and legacy of the aviator. The reference material they possess along with the Purdue University collection provides a very authoritative appraisal of her contributions to aviation and society. Purdue has classified one major body of their collection as "The Flying Career series" which documents Earhart’s major flights and flying activities and is further divided into the following subseries: Contracts and Licenses, 1927-1935; Friendship Flight 1928; National Women’s Air Derby 1929; Women’s World Speed Record 1930; The Autogiro records 1931; Solo Atlantic Flight 1932; Transcontinental Speed Record 1932; Ligue Internationale Aviatrix Trophy 1933; Hawaii Flight 1935; Mexico Flight 1935; Admission of Women Pilots in ALPA [Air Line Pilots Association] 1935; World Flight Attempt One/ World Flight Attempt Two 1937 and Disappearance and Search 1937-1938. Ric Gillespie, the head of the TIGHAR expeditions indicates that the best assessment of Earhart can be found in Mary S. Lovell's The Sound of Wings which ends with these words, "it is impossible to evaluate the motivation that Amelia and her contemporaries, the pioneers of civil aviation, provided for designers and manufacturers, for always these record-breaking pilots demanded better, faster and safer equipment, and they flew constantly at the outer limits of technology." She was a pioneer who ventured into a new realm, and opened up new vistas for pilots and women in what author Gayle Ehrenman characterizes as, "the period between the end of World War I and the United States' entry into World War II... described as 'The Golden Age of Flight'." Amelia was not the only pioneer during this period but she was a pioneer. Bzuk 5:17 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Please cite a diff where I said her documented level of piloting skill "diminishes" her achievements. Moreover, so much has been written about AE you could cite stuff for days and it still wouldn't change the documented record as to her piloting skills. I suggest we either leave phrases like "pioneering achievements in aviation" out of the intro or balance them with the citation I've provided. Gwen Gale 06:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating that she had been a pioneer in aviation does not imply she was an exceptional pilot. It is an acknowledgement that she set records, advocated for the advancement of the science of aviation and ventured into new territory. BTW that statement "pioneering achievements in aviation" was not mine, it was from a quote: "Six decades later, the mystery surrounding the aviator's disappearance has yet to be solved, although her pioneering achievements in aviation continue to inspire new generations of American schoolgirls." As well, author Eileen Morey had a similar quote: "She was a pioneer in aviation.. she led the way so that others could follow and go on to even greater achievements." Morey, Eileen. The Importance of Amelia Earhart. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1995. ISBN 1-56006-065-4. p. 11. Bzuk 6:46 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Dear Colleagues, as it seems we are just returning here to the same old dispute that we had a couple months ago about Earhart's flying skills. It is still present on this page as i can see, with all the "arguments of both sides" available. And, i cannot see any new arguments presented that would somehow prove this "lack of flying skills" in Earhart. It is difficult to understand why to refer to the personal opinion of Gillespie as a highest and definite authority. Gillespie is our not Earhart's contemporary; he never flew with Earhart, and - being a member of the TIGHAR Forum - i can state that he was never able to provide any substantiated evidence for his skeptical opinion about Earhart as a pilot. So, it is difficult for me to understand why his personal opinion must be considered as more authoritative then the opinions of the contemporary top-league aviation professionals - including some Earhart's rivals - who knew her well, flew with her, and obviously knew better. The statement that there is "no citations" about Earhart's high flying skills is incorrect. Such a citations exists, and i quoted it in the previous discussion; please see above. The listing of names of pilots who considered Earhart's skills as outstanding if not exceptional is truly impressive and includes Wiley Post, Jackie Cochran, Ruth Nichols, Gene Vidal, Paul Collins, Leigh Wade, and others. Just for example, quoting General Leigh Wade again: "She was a born flier, with a delicate touch on the stick" (D.Rich, p.85). The opinion of Jackie Cochran, presented in her book published in 1954, was also very complimentary. Simultaneously, apparently the only contemporary skeptics were Paul Mantz and Elinor Smith (whose objectivity is highly doubtful, because of the reasons explained in the previous discussion - see above). Plus, now Gillespie - who never flew with AE at all - is "added" to this "listing of authorities". Sorry, but considering all the abovementioned such an argumentation doesn't look convincing for me. Now, about the word "pioneer" etc. Here's a bit detalized "listing": during her 16-year career in aviation, Earhart set the following records: 1922 - the world altitude record for women; 1928 - FIRST woman to cross the atlantic by air (yes - not actually as a pilot... but still, she was FIRST!); 1929 Nov 22 - speed record for women; 1930 June 28 - speed records for 100 km and for 100 km with a payload 500 kg; 1931 April 8 - altitude record in autogiro (stayed for many decades); 1932 May 20-21 - FIRST woman to cross the atlantic solo, and FIRST person to cross the Atlantic by air twice; 1932 August 24-25 - women's nonstop transcontinental world speed record; 1933 July 7-8 - new women's nonstop transcontinental world speed record (actually broke her own record of previous year); 1935 - January 11-12 - FIRST person to fly Hawaii to Califiornia; FIRST person to fly solo over the Pacific; FIRST person to fly solo over both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans; 1935 April 19-20 - FIRST person to fly solo from Los Angeles to Mexico City; 1935 May 8 - FIRST person to fly solo from Mexico to Newark; 1937 March 17 - speed record for east-to-west flying from Oakland to Honolulu; 1937 - FIRST person attempting to fly around the world by the equator (not completed. ) If this listing of FIRSTS, records and pioneering flights is still not enough serious to consider Earhart as a pioneer, sorry but then it seems simply difficult to imagine who deserves this definition at all and what such a person should do. If about whether Earhart's flying were the "individual enterprising" or the "paid job", it seems for me that this question is just irrevelant to Earhart's very real and factual achievements and, thus, her well earned pioneering status. That's why i think it is necessary to reinstate in the article the word "pioneer", as the one that correctly and authentically "introduces" the historic person to the reader. It would be just factual and fair; no more, no less. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's ok with me so long as the quote I cited about her flying skills is included. Gwen Gale 13:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The change you have made does not seem approriate in the introduction because it is still an area of contention as evidenced by the very lengthy rebuttal provided above, unless there is a consensus about her skills which there is not even to this day, then the place where it should be included is later on when her flying skills are being discussed. I cannot find in any reference sources where there is an introductory passage describing her contributions any mention of her flying skills. Perhaps take it out for now and leave it in the later section. Bzuk 23:56 25 February 2007 (UTC).

The header is mostly cited PoV. I've balanced it so readers won't be misled into thinking her influence had anything to do with extraordinary piloting skills (or that the aviation industry recognizes her as having had extraordinary piloting skills, take your pick). The statement is referenced to a reliable, verifiable and recent secondary source published by the USNI, which is on the campus of the US Naval Academy. Moreover, the book is highly critical of the captain of the Itasca and the US Navy's handling of the search effort. Gwen Gale 00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in the discussion above, the statement is POV based on a later researcher's opinion of her skills, not a contemporary. There is a dispute about just how good her skills were. For the time being, leave it out of the introduction and see the later section where I did quote Gillespie. His assessment of her skills has to be challenged since he is neither a pilot, archaeologist, archivist, historian nor academic. His work in the TIGHAR expeditions have been the source of controversy for many years in the aviation and museology communities. BTW, how could cited statements made by other authors be considered POV? Nobody had made a claim for extraordinary piloting skills but at the same time, all that is being described is that she had left a record of aviation achievements. Bzuk 1:20 26 February (UTC).

With all due respect, you're wholly mistaken. Please stop misrepresenting the provenance of my citation and the qualifications of the author. Please review WP:Verifiability. Please review WP:NPOV. Please stop PoV warring. Meanwhile, I'm puzzled why, when few sources if any assert AE had extraordinary flying skills, why you insist on not specifying exactly what she was noted for in the article header. Thanks however, for making an effort at discussion here. Gwen Gale 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, with all my respect to your opinion it is difficult for me to agree with your policy about this article. Especially with this decision to include into the INTRODUCTION the reference to Gillespie - a source in fact even "less then secondary" (not AE's contemporary -never flew with her at all - refering himself to a secondary sources of the credibility also doubtful for several abovementioned reasons). In the current variant of "introduction chapter", this "secondary" opinion of Gillespie "overweights" the first-hand opinions of numerous highly competent aviation professionals of Earhart's time, who knew Earhart in person, flew with her, and knew BETTER then Gillespie - beyond any reasonable doubts. However these credible historical opinions are not mentioned at all there. Thus, i consider the current variant of the introduction as not only non-balanced, but simply misinforming - with one doubtful secondary opinion presented as historically credible estimation (although actually it is not) and simultaneously the really credible authentic historical evidence simply ignored. This is why i changed the introduction chapter now, removing the reference to Gillespie's claim from there. Gwen, with all my true respect, as far as i know nobody can legally claim some "strict ownership rights" to this article, and the editing of it must be a process with some consensus of the editors "educated on topic" as a naturally assumed condition. The "dictatorship of the one opinion" of one editor, with neglecting, arrogant and impolitely partonizing attitude to the positions of others is not the way. So, I hope you will not interprete my (and Bzuk's) disagreement in some "personal way"; and, if only your goal is really the historical credibility and objectivity not the bossy idea "to have a Last Word" as a Top Priority, i am still quite sure you will not. At least, i still hope we all can cooperate in further improvement on this article in a productive way; and, also, in a way properly respective both to differing opinions and the historical facts supporting these opinions. Returning to Gillespie's published opinion (just for final clarification): i don't mean to insist it must be completely removed from the article at all (at least if YOU consider it so important; although if about me, i don't). I think, if you still consider it so much necessary, it may stay in the numbered "index" below and the reference to this "source" can be added, for example, into the "early flying" or "Boston" chapters, where the negative opinion about Earhart's flying skills is mentioned. However, it seems simply illogical to me to place this into the INTRODUCTORY (!) chapter. Several years ago Gillespie claimed on his TIGHAR Internet Forum that his goal is not to commemorate AE somehow or celebrate her legacy, but rather to "debunk" her (?..). I couldn't understand this position then, and still can't understand it now. And - sorry - can't understand why the opinion of Gillespie must be credited with such a huge weight to be placed in the INTRODUCTORY (!) chapter of the Encyclopedic (!)article on Amelia Earhart - "in favor" of numerous and much more credible first-hand historic evidence. With true respect - Alex V. Mandel, PhD, the member of Amelia Earhart Society and Amelia Earhart Research Association, AE researcher and historian for 25 years. Alex V Mandel 07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Gwen Gale 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, point 1) I still don't think that the links you provided can change the FACT that the Gillespie's statement - beyond any reasonable doubts - cannot be considered as more credible then the contemporary evidence of the numerous competent pilots who flew with Earhart and KNEW BETTER then Mr. Gillespie. Point 2) Sorry to note this, but it is also very obvious for me that you are violating the principle of the necessary "consensus" between the Editors - also described in the links you are refering to. Instead, you are acting now in a bossy, arrogant and impolite way, taking the role of "final judge" - without any legal base substantiating such a pretension, and not already refering to the historical "on-topic" facts at all. Sorry Gwen, but now it seems quite obvious for me that your priority is really just "To Have a Final Word - Above All". Too sad, is the only i can said in this situation. Still, i consider that my "background" in the Earhart research gives me a right to revert the edition to the variant that i proposed; at least because of i did NOT see in your reply ANY factiual on-topic answers why exactly my last proposed corrections were wrong. I very hope the other Editors will express their opinions on this situation, and not after long. Regards - Alex V Mandel 08:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please provide some citations from reliable secondary sources quoting pilots who knew Earhart and said her flying skills were "exceptional," "extraordinary," "excellent," any superlative will do. Please review WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV if you haven't already. With all respect for your PoV, thanks :) As for consensus, two editors are not a consensus. A flock of editors unfamiliar with the topic called in to overwhelm the discussion is not a consensus. A consensus as to successful implementation of WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV is the only consensus worth talking about. Gwen Gale 09:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, thank you for quick reply. Sorry but i already presented - and not once (see above) - the reference to the original evidence of contemporary pilots who knew Earhart in person, flew with her, and very obviously knew better then Mr. Gillespie and other contemporary "critics".. including even Mary Lovell, whose book is, generally, pretty serious but still she relies too much - in many fragments of her text - to the claims of Elinor Smith and tends to treate it like a gospel. Particularly, i referred to the opinion of General Leigh Wade - who said Earhart was a "born pilot" (with a reference to exact page in the book, with an authentic quote); also to the opinion of Jackie Cochran ("Stars at Noon", 1954).. and so on. Sorry Gwen but from your side you did never provide any historically credible citations somehow substantiating the Gillespie's personal opinion that Earhart's skills were not better then average etc... Instead, you simply placed this statement of Gillespie into the most important, INTRODUCTORY chapter of the article - with the alternating opinions of much more competent Earhart's contemporaries simply ignored. And now you are insisting on this, just reverting the proposed corrections to your variants - without any factual on-topic argumentation. Thus, in fact you started now the senseless "war of editions" - a very much counterproductive and illogical thing. THIS is what i consider as unkind and bossy "dictatorships pretensions", and definitely PROTEST against this. Yes Gwen, maybe two Editors (i guess you meant Bzuk and me?) are not so much significant number... but still it is more then ONE Editor (you), who apparently claims now a total "ownership rights" and the "Royal Right of Final Judgement" on this article. I very hope the other editors will express their opinions now - BEFORE any further changes/alterations in the text will be made. Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD Alex V Mandel 09:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that carries any weight around here is a citation from a reliable secondary source. You have not provided a quote, author, publication and page number (or equivalent, verifiable URI). I looked. Please do so without all the gab. Thanks. Gwen Gale 09:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Gwen but you simply don't want to listen at all to my arguments... so i'll try again; 1) You did NOT provide any historically credible and reliable citation/confirmation for Gillespies personal opinion but just placed it into the introductory chapter - simultaneously totally ignoring the competent first-hand published opinions of several Earhart's contemporaries; 2) sorry but i did provide a citations, quotes, and pages; so probably you just missed to find it in the text above (just or to avoid the guess that you simply didn't want to see it). OK, so repeateing now some quotes for yours and other's better convenience: "Whether she was offered another airplane to fly, she accepted. After being manhandled by fans at an air show in Buffalo in the night of March 26 [1929], she flew for most of the next day in several airplanes that were new for her, among them a new trainer intended for the army by its maker, Major R.H. Fleet, the head of Consolidated Aircraft. She was accompanied by Fleet’s test pilot, Leigh Wade, veteran World War aviator and later a major general in the Air Force. Wade had been a pilot of the “Boston”, one of tree Army-Air Service planes in the first round the world flight in 1924. The trainer he was demonstrating for Fleet was designed with “neutral stability” to respond any change of the controls, good or bad, on the part of the student pilot. When Amelia took off into a strong southwest wind, Wade braced himself to take over quickly in case she made a mistake. She did not. “She was a born flier”, he said, “with a delicate touch on the stick”. Also: "...A few years later, Wade saw what he thought was another demonstration of Amelia's instinctive skills when he wathched her take off from Clover Field in Santa Monica. As her Vega headed toward the trees at the end of the runway, he saw intermittent puffs of black smoke in its wake, evidence of a badly misfiring motor. With the aircraft nearing stall point Amelia eased it up gently over the trees, circled the field, and landed. "There," Wade said, was a pilot". Sources: "Amelia Earhart" by Doris L. Rich - page 85; also "Flying with Leight Wade" -Interview with Maj. Gen.Leigh Wade, Jan 14,1985." I also referred to the published opinions of Jackie Cochran ("Stars at Noon", 1954 - sorry just haven't this book near me right now to give the exact pages), and others. Sorry, but i still consider these primary first-hand evidence of the top-league contemporary aviation professionals as much more authoritative then the personal opinion of Mr. Gillespie. And, if there is any need to include into the introduction chapter somebody's recorded/published opinions about Earhart's piloting skills, it still seems obvious for me that the proper choice should be for the mentioned opinions of Earhart's contemporaries. Still i don't insist to do it; but just repeating my point that the INTRODUCTORY chapter of Earhart article is not an appropriate place for the personal historically unsubstantiated opinion of our contemporary Mr. Gillespie. Quoted there, it is simply misinforming and makes the article non-balanced and not objective just from the very first lines. Regards - Alex V Mandel 10:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, in the end nothing carries any weight around here but a citation from a reliable secondary source. As a courtesy, I'll repeat my request, since you have not supplied what I asked for:

• Please provide some citations from reliable secondary sources quoting pilots who knew Earhart and said her flying skills were "exceptional," "extraordinary," "excellent," any superlative will do.

• This means a quote, an author, a page number and a publisher, or an equivalent URI. Thanks. Gwen Gale 10:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, sorry but you are not simply attentive to my points again, and are repeatedly making the "substitution of the topics" in a way that seems "convenient" for you for to "save" in the text the Gillespie's estimation of Earhart's skills, instead of answering to the "research challenge" presented for you - to substantiate the Gillespie's opinion by something historically credible and factual. So, here i'm trying again: A) I did not try - and did not demand it from you - to add into the introduction chapter of the Earhart article the statement about her flying skills being described using such exact words as "exceptional," "extraordinary," "excellent," etc. So, your attempt to "challenge" me with this is just subjectless. B) What i actually considered (and consider) as necessary to do is just to remove from the introduction chapter the Gillespie's estimation of the Earhart's flying skills as "average at best". I explained already many times why exactly: because of it is one-sided, not substantiated by historic facts, stays in obvious and serious contradiction with the published opinions of the competent contemporary pilots who knew Earhart and flew with her, and - thus - it is simply inappropriate for the introduction chapter of the Encyclopedic article about historic person. Everybody with unbiased and objective view will see that Bzuk and I did provide many proven historic facts, including some published quotes/citations, about Earhart's flying skills, that very obviously challenges the Gillespie's statement. So why it is exactly (and only) the Gillespie's estimation that "must" stay in the introductory(!) chapter of the Earhart's article and "describe" her quality for every reader? Why not the opinion of General Leigh Wade, just for example? I DID provide above the exact citations from published sources with his opinion on Earhart's skills, expressed in a very clear and definite way... Very sad if you just don't want to see it continuing instead to play sophysms and blame your opponents for the mythic "lack of citations" etc. You know, there really are other published solid opinions about Earhart's skills - not only from TIGHAR and Mr. Gillespie. Here, just for example, goes some additional information/reference/citations re: the Earhart's flying skills and pioneering status. 1) The evidence of John G. "Monte" Montijo - Earhart's first instructor in aerobatics, the ex-Army flier, barnstormer and "stunt pilot" for Goldwin studios: "She handled the ship like a veteran." (D.Rich, "Amelia Earhart: a Biography", p. 35) 2) The opinion of Neta Snook, AE's first flight instructor, expressed in the interview published in US media in 1928: "She took to the air like a duck into the water and progressed rapidly" (quoted in "Amelia, My Courageous Sister" by M.E.Morrissey and C.M.Osborne, with a photocopy of the original newpaper provided on p. 90) 3) On page 87 of the D.Rich's book there is an evidence of the great speed flier and test pilot Ben Howard about the skills shown by Earhart when she took up her Vega alone for the first time and the altimeter failed in the poor visibility: "...she had to estimate how low she could fly by using a combination of readings from the fuel mixture control and carburetor response dials, a solution Howard thought ingenious and sensitive". 4) The memories about Earhart from Jackie Cochran published in her book "Stars at Noon" (1954) - sorry, this morning i just hadn't the book near me and couldn't refer to exact page numbers; so here it is - pages 135-143. There is a special chapter in Cochran's book called "Amelia", all very complimentary about Earhart in all aspects. Particularly, Cochran quotes in approving tone the statement of her own husband Floyd to Earhart: "Amelia, if you are going to keep your place at the top among women in aviation, you're waisting your time and taking a big risk for nothing. No one can topple you from your pinnacle." (Cochran, p.141). Also, about the dispute on the use of the word "pioneer"; in the D.Rich's book (p.44) there is a quote from the great polar explorer Admiral Richard E.Byrd, who referred to Amelia Earhart and Ruth Nichols as the two who stood out among "a handful of women who sharedin the hardships and perils of aviation PIONEERING" (capitals mine - AM). I really think any unbiased reader will agree that more then enough "first hand" historic sources/citations were provided for to counterbalance the personal opinion of Mr. Gillespie - our contemporary who never flew with Earhart and is not even a secondary source in fact. And any objective unbiased person will agree the opinions of General Leigh Wade, also Jackie Cochran, also Earhart's instructors Neta Snook and John Montijo (aerobatics), also test pilot Ben Howard, also Admiral Richard Byrd, and others about Earhart's piloting abilities and general status in aviation and aviation history must be reasonably considered as at least not less authoritative then the modern statement of Mr. Rick Gillespie of TIGHAR. Mr. Gillespie's view can be well respectes as his personal opinion. But, after all, the Wikipedia article is not the property of TIGHAR, or Gillespie, or any particular editor. And very definitely it must not be used for the "exclusive promotion" of his one-sided view on the subject, with other - contemporary and thus much more historically credible estimations on the topic(with a sources and citations provided not once) simply ignored. . I still hope that other Editors of this page will express their opinion about all this and will make their points on the discussed topic. Regards - Alex V Mandel 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are unsupported without reliable citations, please provide them pithily. Are they in the mass of text above? Dunno. If so, list them. Thanks. Gwen Gale 05:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"She took to the air like a duck into the water and progressed rapidly."(an assessment by Neta Snook, her first flight instructor) Morrissey, M.E. and Osborne, C.M. Amelia, My Courageous Sister: The Biography of Amelia Earhart. Wichita, Kansas: McCormick-Armstrong Publishing Division, 1963. ISBN 1-14140-879-1. p. 90.

""Amelia, if you are going to keep your place at the top among women in aviation, you're wasting your time and taking a big risk for nothing. No one can topple you from your pinnacle." (an assessment by Jacqueline Cochran, her greatest female competitor) Cochran, Jacqueline and Brinkley, Maryann Bucknum. Stars at Noon. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1954. p. 135-143.

"...she had to estimate how low she could fly by using a combination of readings from the fuel mixture control and carburetor response dials, a solution (Ben) Howard thought ingenious and sensitive".(an assessment by noted speed racer, Ben Howard) Rich, Doris L. Amelia Earhart: A Biography. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. ISBN 1-56098-725-1. p. 87. Bzuk 6:06 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Yay! Thanks so much Bzuk, truly, for that :)

• Snook is referring to her early lessons. Nothing here about her skill as a seasoned pilot, enthusiastic beginners don't always carry through to high skill and craft.
• Cochran talks about a pinnacle but what pinnacle? Celebrity, writer, media icon, yes. Nothing here about piloting skills (even if that's what Cochran meant, it's not in the quote).
• Rich quotes Howard talking about her ability to read dials. AE was very intelligent, so extrapolating a condition from the readouts of two dials sounds like Amelia to me. On the other hand, reading dials is but a slice of the kind of flying skills we're talking about here.

None of these quotes support any assertion AE had superlative flying skills. Can you find any more? Gwen Gale 06:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"She was a great flyer and an even greater woman." (Jaccqueline Cochran considered a superb pilot and her appraisal of Amelia Earhart, her greatest rival, referring to the preparations for Earhart's world flight in 1937, just after flying with her in the Lockheed Electra) Cochran, Jacqueline with Odlum, Floyd (Foreword by Charles "Chuck" Yeager). Stars at Noon. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1954. p. 89-90. Bzuk 07:11 27 February 2007 (UTC).

See how it's twined with another, stronger compliment? This is politeness and courtesy stirred by personal admiration and friendship (I can understand that, AE is a hero of mine), but it's not much of a comment on her flying. Thanks so much for offering these quotes, I so appreciate it, but they don't support the simple assertion that her flying skills were anything more than average. Gwen Gale 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, sorry for saying what i'm going to say now... but from your last dialogue with Bzuk it is just too much obvious that you are making "anyway the last word must be mine!" just a Top Priority Principle. Please can't you see yourself that the discussion really crossed all reasonable borders of the common sense already? Two different editors of this article already provided a lot of citations, with all the needed references to the authentic historic sources; the quotes of contemporary historic persons who knew Earhart as a novice (Snook, Montijo...), as a "seasoned pilot" (Leigh Wade...), as a veteran record pilot as she was known in her last years (Cochran...); the persons who flew with her in these different times, and very obviously knew much better then Mr. Gillespie about Earhart's flying skills and quality - beyond any reasonable doubts. Still, nobody of us did ever even suggest (not even saying the word "insist") to include these citations into the introductory chapter of the article. First of all just because of one principal reason: the introductive descriptive chapter of Encyclopedic article about the real historic person is simply not a place for any personal opinions, even if really well substantiated ones. It is for facts, pure strict facts, and facts only. From your side, you simply ignored the challenge to substantiate the credibility of Gillespie's modern purely "theoretic"/speculative opinion with any historical support properly reliable for Encyclopedic article. Instead - when the citations you repeatedly demanded from your Colleagues were quoted already for the 3rd if not 4th time, with new and new historical quotes added, you just "changed the tactics" and started to try invent some "arguments" in attempt to "impeach" somehow the presented first-hand evidence, original citations and sources - when it became already impossible to ignore the material at all. ..."This is [just] politeness".. or "courtesy"... or just "personal admiration"... etc. etc. etc. What is all this, Gwen? Let's admit: it is just your personal estimation/speculation supported by nothing factual and checkable. If not - please can you prove these your speculations somehow? Please do it. Prove to us that there is any historical confirmation to support your speculations that it was only Cochran's "politeness", or "compliment", or "admiration" etc. etc. etc. that conditioned her remarks on Earhart, not just her real honest opinion. Please prove that the opinion of Mr. Gillespie is more authoritative then the evidence of General Leigh Wade, Cochran and others who flew with Earhart. Please, prove to us that the opinion of Mr. Gillespie must really "overweight" all the provided historic material and published first-hand evidence; and prove and explain why exactly. And please give us an exact reliable documented proofs of all this - published in a credible secondary sources. Please give us the exact citations; please provide them pithily; please describe are they in the mass of text above?.. and so on. Very sorry dear Colleague in editing, but you cannot endlessly abuse the tolerance of your other Colleagues with repeating and growing demands - ignoring both the questions addressed to you and the factual answers accurately given to satisfy your demands (or trying to "impeach" these factual answers with pure speculations). With all my true personal respect to you and your private opinions, it is not the way how any serious historic research can be done, and not a way at all to prepare or improve an encyclopedic article written for the general educational purposes. Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, PhD. Alex V Mandel 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Meanwhile luzzing my own words back at me doesn't change anything.

Your reply makes it starkly clear you either have not read WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV, or you don't understand them, or perhaps you're ignoring them. Dunno. Don't care.

I'm not making the assertions, you are, with thousands of unsupported words. Assertions carry no weight here. For the last time, please provide the citations I requested. Gwen Gale 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Her teacher, aviation pioneer Anita Snook, had some doubts about Amelia's true skill as a pilot, doubts that would be echoed in the future." (BBC) Gwen Gale 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, your reply with a total lack of factual on-topic argumentation really can't change anything. This link you provided is just a "common statement" from the BBC website, not even a quote at all. What is its real value and historic credibility in this form? Just zero. Meanwhile yesterday i did provide the exact citation from Snook, with exact reference to source, the page, and photocopy reproduced there. How about that?.. No more comments on this required, i strongly believe. Other Editor (Bzuk) and I did provide to you - not once already - all the exact sources, pages and citations that are needed to disprove the Gillespie's statement as not matching any criterias of historic credibility. It all IS provided above. Not once already. And if you just don't want to see it i really can't help. Also i would seriously suggest you to "tone down" a bit and avoid the bossy remarks like "For the last time..." etc. It is not only utterly arrogant and impolite (not the first time from your side) but can be legally interpreted as a public abuse against other Editors on the public website. You don't have neither any "monopoly on truth" nor any "exclusive ownership rights" to this article, and no any "special royal right" to interprete the Wikipedia Rules and "code" in any way convenient for you exclusively. And naturally you are not in position to demand from anybody to satisfy your "requests" that you just repeat again and again after receiving the actual answers already long ago - totally ignoring the actual and reasonable on-topic requests addressed to yourself. Please try to be a reasonable, polite and cooperative Colleague to other Colleagues; that's all i can suggest to you now, with my true best wishes. Regards - Alex V Mandel 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Alex V Mandel, however your assertions are generally unsupported. Moreover, please let up on the personal attacks, thank you. Gwen Gale 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

DOD

Was she ever declared dead?Therequiembellishere 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, her husband had to officially declare her dead on 5 January 1939 in order to remarry. Bzuk 04:27 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh, 'cause it wasn't in the first paragraph.Therequiembellishere 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing debate

BZuk has asked for my help on resolving the ongoing problems in this article. It appears this is not his first plea, and I apologize that I was not more proactive in the past. I kept seeing the article popping up in my watchlist after doing a vandalism revert some time ago, but was never interested enough to delve too deeply into the edits.

Now that I have, I think the matter needs to be drawn to a close. This talk page is now 151 kb long, and most of it is about this debate. The 3rd party opinion mechanism cannot be used due to previous dealings with both BZuk and Gwen, and the process doesn't apply because there are more than two editors involved. That means that formal solutions would start with the RfC and get nastier from there, which I would suggest everyone would do well to avoid.

Gwen, if I am reconstructing your edits and check-in notes properly, your primary concern is over the use of the term "pioneer". Your messages above, in particular the one leading off the section called "Pioneering achievements" states this point, when you write "Using this phrase in the header could be misleading".

As BZuk and Alex have pointed out on numerous well-referenced occasions, the term "pioneer" has been repeatedly applied to AH, in some cases ending up in the title of biographies. I can't see any cause for debate here; if biographers refer to her in this fashion in the title of their works, placing the term in the introduction para is certainly valid here.

I have looked over Gwen's line of argument, which appears to be based on the comment that AH's piloting skills are, according to a single source, "average". I really don't understand what this has to do with anything. The definition of "pioneer" has nothing to do with piloting skills, and everything to do with one's place in history. It appears that no-one is debating that she has an important place in history. Is there some debate on that point?

If I am missing some cogent point of interest, by all means, illuminate it. But I cannot find such an argument so far. And let's not forget this debate has been going on for well over a week and resulted in pages of comments over one single word.

Maury 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you say it's based on a single source then you haven't even read the last few posts on this talk page, nor are you familiar with the sources or their provenance. If you think my "objection" is to the word "pioneer" you have mis-read my posts and/or misinterpreted my edits. If you don't know what it has to do with anything, what are you truly doing here? I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic, my comments are quite sincere. Please review. Thanks. Gwen Gale 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok well then I would like to know how you would like to proceed. I don't believe allowing this thread to continue on its current course will lead to any positive outcome. It seems that you do not agree with the opinion I have offered, which is fine, but this being the case I believe it is time to start an administrative process to achieve some sort of conclusion. I believe the formal way to proceed would be via the RfC process, given that the 3rd party process does not appear to apply in this case. Is this acceptable to everyone? Maury 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Without that citation the introduction could mislead readers into believing Earhart accomplished all of these truly wonderful things as a result of above-average flying skills. Previously I had suggested that, to avoid this, the introduction avoid all PoV and interpretation. For example, mentioning things like her distinguished flying cross, the record-breaking flights, her books, her wide celebrity and fame in popular culture are all ok with me because they're not PoV, but quantitative facts. This was a remarkable woman who sincerely sought to popularize commercial aviation and blaze a professional trail for women (never mind flying "for the fun of it"). Meanwhile she is not recognized in the professional aviation community for her flying skill. I have provided at least two citations to support this. I have asked for citations otherwise and although Bzuk made a sincere effort and supplied three quotes, none support the assertion that her flying skills were anything more than average. For example, she damaged many aircraft on takeoff and landing, many more incidents than most of her female contemporaries or say, Lindbergh (whose mishaps, for example, were all in the air due to equipment failures). Thus, two solutions would be ok with me:

• Remove all cited PoV and interpretation from the introduction (IMHO the most helpful thing to do) or,
• Balance the PoV with a cited reference to her flying skills, following WP:NPOV and WP:verifiability.
• I'm also more than willing to work with other editors to tweak the wording so that everyone's ok with it.

I think Bzuk has done a very helpful job of expanding the article, btw. My only other objection to the article stems from the choice of words in one or two section titles, which is trivial. Gwen Gale 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Joining the fray... I think it's clear that to both her contemporaries and to us AE was a "pioneer" for women in aviation. Such statements belong in the introduction. I think its equally important we make clear exactly what it was she pioneered - and skill at the stick wasn't it. If we state unambiguously her accomplishments and the effects they had on aviation, I doubt anyone would confuse them for "flying skill." Since she didn't gain notoriety from her skills (or lack), statements about such either way really don't belong in the lead.

On a tangential note, we shouldn't rely on quotations regarding her skills from her contemporaries. These might be fed by any number of biases. Instead, such statements (when they do appear later in the article) should be supported by the thoughtful analysis of aviation historians who evaluate her actual performance against that of her peers. Such would satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources.

Lastly, not all of Lindbergh's crackups were beyond his control. He chose to take risks that sometimes lead to disaster - including one of his four bailouts. And risk taking falls under the category of piloting skill. Rklawton 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I've used a statement written last year in a verifiable secondary source from a reliable publisher. I have no objection to the word "pioneer," the phrase "aviation pioneer" in close proximity to the word "achievements" (this latter word showing up twice in the intro) could mislead readers into thinking it all had something to do with remarkable flying skills. This is exacerbated by sweeping use of the phrase "modern reassessment" in the intro, which gives readers the impression of a complete, accurate and fully supported summarizing statement provided in full context. Gwen Gale 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we call her an "aviation pioneer", list the areas she pioneered, and skip using the word "achievements" in the lead entirely? This would focus the reader on her pioneering rather than her flying. Rklawton 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, rm'ing the word "achievements" altogether from the intro, along with rm'g "modern reassessment," might do it, then following Bzuk's suggestion that the referenced 2006 quote about her flying skills be buried in the text somewhere. Gwen Gale 05:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made these changes, leaving "aviation pioneer" (but removing one repetition of that phrase) along with removing the word "achievement" and the phrase about "modern reassessment." I have moved the ref to her flying skills down to the Luke Field incident (though there are other places it could go). Lastly, I have left all of the other citations in the introduction intact. Gwen Gale 06:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I notice that the word "woman" still appears in the introduction four times. That's way too much since it could imply a sexist bias. On the other hand, I find it tough to cut any of them. Gwen Gale 06:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues, thank you for making your thoughtful comments on this "ongoing debate" problem. Alas it is still difficult to agree with Gwen's statement that the answers provided to satisfy her demands are "generally unsupported". It seems obvious that the provided factual historic evidence is enough massive, conclusive and includes all the needed reference to published sources and citations, accordingly to the normal Wikipedia rules. Also, it is very difficult to agree with Gwen's so definite statement that Earhart "is not recognized in the professional aviation community for her flying skill". Of course "two citations" that she provided are not enough for such a wide statement; at least Bzuk and I provided much more ones proving the opposite. So it is still just Gwen's personal opinion - at least until somebody would be able to provide some reliable citations from any solid published document that can be legally and reasonably considered as some "general verdict on Earhart;s piloting skills of the world (or American) professional aviation community". Thus i do agree completely with Maury's position that it may be "time to start an administrative process to achieve some sort of conclusion." About the current condition of the article: i do agree with the current form of the introductory chapter. However the way how the Gillespie's quote is placed in the text of the article, seems for me as not matching any criterias of historic accuracy and objectivity. It again stays there alone, without immediate exact explanation who said this where and on which historical background it is based; and with no alternating historic opinions/evidence provided right there for to make the chapter properly balanced and objective. Far not all the readers are having such a deep interest for to explore all the links provided for to check all the references. So, in current form, for the readers it creates some impression that the provided Gillespie's quote really reflects some "general opinion of aviation community" on Earhart as a pilot (maybe even just from then, 1937 - well before Mr. Gillespie was actually born) - that is factually incorrect and thus misinforming. So i think it must be corrected. It's my opinion that the reference to Gillespie can stay there; but if so the alternate credible historic opinions must be necessarily added there too - for example from Cochran and Leigh Wade. This will just make the chapter properly balanced and historically objective. Regards - Alex V Mandel 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I put the reference after a description of the Luke field incident which already stated that some sources have cited pilot error, so your assertion is unsupported. Your assertion involving the age of the historian and its relevance to this citation is unsupported. Your assertion that I am making "demands" is unsupported. Your assertion that the citation is rendered inappropriate by "massive" and "conclusive" evidence to the contrary is wholly unsupported. Your remark that "...until somebody would be able to provide some reliable citations from any solid published document that can be legally and reasonably considered..." is unsupported, mistaken and a misprepresentation. Gwen Gale 09:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, really sorry but all mine (and Bzuk's) arguments are well supported by all the needed published historical citations and proper references to sources, accordingly to the rules of Wikipedia. Everybody can see it. So your new demonstratively conflicting and militant tirade - again without any bit of factual on-topic argumentation - is just subjectless, "proves" nothing and doesn't add anything real, new or informative to the real topic of discussion. Some "administrative solution", i think, would be really proper now, considering the abovementioned. Regards - Alex V Mandel 12:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. This is a public wiki and I support Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale 12:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, my goal here was to end the debate if possible. Alex, Gwen, Bill, all of your positions have been more than well represented ("tedious detail" comes to mind) and further re-hashing of the same points will do nothing to solve the problem. In my opinion, and I'd like to think it counts for something given my history here and knowledge of the topic as a pilot, I consider these statements self-evident:

• the word "pioneer" stays, by definition AH is a pioneer
• any sort of linking of her piloting ability to the term "pioneer" simply doesn't "fly"

Nevertheless, I agree with Gwen that the debate about her flying skills seems interesting enough to include. However, I disagree that it should be included where it was, and the one-sided presentation that has been presented to date.

I invite Gwen to fix both of these in one fell swoop by proposing a new paragraph on that topic here on the talk page. I recommend that the paragraph include both sides of the argument, both the statement you have provided and at least some of the ones Alex has presented. Once we beat that into shape, we can discuss where to place it in the article.

Maury 13:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Maury, that's a help. First, I've already made the changes to the intro which were proposed by Dklawson... left "aviation pioneer" in the text, removed the RG reference to her flying skills, removed the word "achievement" and removed all word repetition. I think the intro is helpful now (and would also propose that some mention be made in the intro about her having written best-selling books). My only worry was the intro: As I said before, I think Bzuk has done wonders for the body of the article (my nitpick about the word "adventure" in a section title is... a nitpick). Ok, so far as her flying skills go:

I believe the intro now avoids any accidental inference (through genuine enthusiasm for this charismatic, brave and intelligent person) that her piloting skills were anything more than average, so I don't think any comment on her flying skills is strictly necessary. Given that the intro is thoroughly NPoV now I don't think the RG quote about her flying skills is necessary and what's more, given an NPoV intro, I think a section devoted to her flying skills would imply a controversy which doesn't truly exist. She wasn't a bad pilot. As Dklawson put it, she didn't make her contributions to aviation through the stick, is all. Gwen Gale 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maury, thank you for your opinion. I do agree with your points fully. Meanwhile, i tried to re-arrange the article a bit, for to make it both factually correct and considering properly the expressed opinions of all the active Editors (naturally including Gwen). So here is what it did. I "condensed" all the statements/estimations of Earhart's flying skills in one chapter; i think it is both logical and more convenient for the reader. So, since this question is already touched in the earlier "Boston" chapter, i moved the Gillespie's quote from the "First attempt" chapter to "Boston". Also i added there two quotes presenting the differing opinions of Earhart's contemporaries who flew with her: General Leigh Wade and Jackie Cochran. It is a published solid historic material and i think if some opinions about Earhart's skills must be there at all - these two obviously must be there. All tree sources (Gillespie, Wade, Cochran) goes with a proper reference to original citations, as the Wiki format demands. I hope this variant may satisfy all whose goal is a productive cooperation in work not a personal conflicts and mess of any sort... or, at least, to serve as a more or less proper "base" for further improvements. Regards - Alex V Mandel 13:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex I have rm'd the RG quote altogether, based on the suggestions of both Maury and Dklawson as described above, which I have followed. Everyone, comments are still welcome of course. Gwen Gale 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, as i can see you removed all 3 quotes - Gillespie, Wade, and Cochran. In fact it just restores the "status quo ante", i.e. the situation that existed before all the dispute. But i think it may be more or less appropriate solution too. Regards - Alex V Mandel 14:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I rm'd only the Gillespie quote. So far as I know the Wade and Cochran quotes never made it into the article. Meanwhile the intro is IMO thouroughly NPoV now, without mentioning her flying skills at all, which is ok by me. Gwen Gale 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, the Cochran and Wade quotes were added by me - together with Gillespie's quote (moved from "First Attempt") - to the "Boston Chapter". Maybe there was some technical trouble or so that prevented its appearance in the article; i simply don't know. If anybody from the Editors are interested, i can restore this variant with 3 quotes, for to let you see how it looked like... But I don't insist on this and think the current "status quo ante" variant is more or less satisfactory too. The absense of any estimations/speculations on flying skills in the introduction is OK by me too, no objections. Regards - Alex V Mandel 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to get into her flying skills any more than what's already been skillfully described in the Boston section IMO. I'm ok with it too now, thanks Alex :) Gwen Gale 14:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I, for one, really like the new intro. Still reading the rest. Maury 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And I like the rest too. Kudos everyone! Maury 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While everyone is still here...

Ok, something else altogether. I'm ok with how AE's birth-death bracket reads:

(24 July 1897 – date of death unknown) No worries. However, I would prefer

(24 July 1897 – missing 2 July 1937, declared dead 5 January 1939)

I tried to propose a policy to cover this over at WP:Date but got blown off by 2 editors who said it would be "instruction creep" and that it should be worked out on a case by case basis. I don't agree but whatever it's not that big of a deal. So, in absence of a clear policy over at WP:Date, would anyone mind if I changed the b-d bracket to show her missing and declared dates as shown above? Gwen Gale 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since (24 July 1897 – missing 2 July 1937, declared dead 5 January 1939) is a purely factual statement, it sounds OK to me. Regards - Alex V Mandel 16:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism again?...

It looks like the article is suffering again from the new series of vandalism attacks... Alex V Mandel 07:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Current Event?

Just a curiosity...I'm failing to see why this has a current event tag at the top. I was going to remove it, but wasn't sure if there was some reasoning behind it. Mercurialmusic 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone placed the current event tag because a couple of days ago, there was an AP story about a theory behind Earhart's disappearance. The story is linked in one of the references in the article. I would agree with you that this does not in fact warrant a current event tag because the story does not contain information about anything that has actually happened recently; it just says that some explorers plan a trip to Gardner Island sometime in the coming months to look for evidence. What do other people think? Dce7 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor that placed this tag reasoned that the news stories have contributed to the recent rash of attacks by vandals. Whether it remains or not is not important as long as the protection remains. Bzuk 04:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough. I'm removing the tag, then. Dce7 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In the arts section

As with many widely known celebrities, there are countless works of fiction and other artistic material referencing Earhart. I think this section has gotten far too lengthy and has become more or less a marketing platform. IMO the article should only list half a dozen (or so) truly notable and culturally significant reference to AE in the arts. For all the other items in the list, I suggest a list article which could be expanded with a bit of text, Amelia Earhart books and references in the arts (or something like that) with sundry sections for non-fiction, fiction and other media listings. Gwen Gale 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)