Talk:Amelia Earhart

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Archives

---

1. Archive 1 - Myths and conspiracy theories
2. Archive 2 - Myths sub-article vote, Neta Snook
3. Archive 3 - Vandalism, Pioneering Achievements, In the arts
4. Archive 4 - Disappearance theories
5. Archive 5 - Continuing discussion on various Disappearance theories
6. Archive 6 – Edits regarding the Saipan theory
7. Archive 7 – Radio Signals
8. Archive 8 – Contentious theories
9. Archive –
10. Archive 10 – Health

---

What do we need to get the A?

As a Wikipedia "nugget" I would appreciate any guidance from some of the experienced editors as to what this article needs to get an "A."

My library has both shelves and stacks. If all we need is a few more citations, or a bit more detail, I might have what we need within reach.Mark Lincoln 10:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, the process has already been started. I asked some experienced editors to evaluate the article two weeks ago. Their comments have already been used to improve the article. Briefly, they included the following:

• Reduction of the Popular culture section. This is always an area of contention, as trivial and non-notable entries do tend to creep in. A number of submissions were revised, with at least five of the original entries removed.
• Consolidation of some honours/memorials. One admin noted that the extensive list of individual schools was unnecessary and there would be no way to mention every shrub, flower and pebble that had ever been named in Earhart's honour.
• Consistency in format for reference sources was to be maintained. I have mainly taken on that dubious task as my life-long background as an academic librarian has equipped me to be a pedantic, "by-the-book" (at least one outside observer constantly refers to me as "The Anorak") reference cataloger.
• Tone and tenor. This was one area that has now been "banged" away on especially since the last major rewrite of the disappearance theories section. Up until the recent revision that was in question, the admins were universally in agreement that the article dealt with the controversial aspects of the story in an objective and academically consistent manner. IMHO, the original tenor has been re-established and made even the Family stronger than it had ever been. stronger by your additional rewrites and edits of what was a ugly butt faced boy who didn't know anything contentious issue (at least to one editor).
• Length and scope of the article was considered sufficient and one admin even commented that the article was superior to what was traditionally available on this subject, mainly due to the extensive footnoting and references provided. Your comment that we may need a bit more detail and citations- nope, if anything the article was considered extensively cited and provided the kind of detail not normally found in a biographical article on Wikipedia. Just drop over to any other major historical figure, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, or others to see the comparison, e.g. Alexander Graham Bell is 55 kb long, Amelia Earhart is 81 kb.

Other admins will soon chime in, but at this juncture, we have not only a "A" grade or "Good article" but also a featured article, as one admin indicated. FWIW Bzuk 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

One of the criteria is "stability". Given the emotions of some of the more strident editors here, that is about all I see lacking. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I have addressed the issues I saw as weaknesses in the article.Mark Lincoln 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What this talk page is for

I have a worry that discussions on this talk page are veering too far into general discussions and personal opinions about the topic rather than ways in which the article can be helped through independent and verifiable citations. Some editors may wish to review what a Wikipedia talk page is for. Thanks and all the best. Gwen Gale 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, if your running out of facts and into trouble, why, don't whine about it!!!!! We are discussing the most disputed parts of the article. Do you want me to fix the factual errors I pointed out in the Gardner Island hypothesis Gwen? I can make the changes and have the source material available as published by TIGHAR in "Finding Amelia", to document it.Mark Lincoln 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you write that stuff Gwen? It is not "original research' to repeat half-truths and outright distortions. It is just sloppy research.Mark Lincoln 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, thanks. Gwen Gale 12:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to fix the factual misrepresentations by omission in the Gardner Island Hypothesis Gwen?Mark Lincoln 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to provide a citation from a reliable and independent, published secondary source which directly asserts "factual misrepresentations by omission in the Gardner Island Hypothesis." Gwen Gale 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You want 'independent and verifiable citations' Gwen? Try the "Epilogue" page (241) of "Finding Amelia" by Ric Gillespie where he publishes Gallagher's telegram to Resident Commissioner Barley. The statement that he told Barley that he thought the skeleton was Earhart's is clearly a misrepresentation Gwen. As is the omission of the fact that within the box was a "sextant being old fashioned. . ."

That telegram is the entire foundation for the Gardner Island Hypothesis. With no likely Amelia Skeleton 'found' and an 'old fashioned' sextant in the accompanying box, that is a very flimsy foundation. amelia was so cool!!!!

If I am so damned determined to violate a NPOV then why have I let it stand without challenge Gwen?

Or does reading Ric "the head of TIGHAR" Gillespie's book carefully constitute "Original Research"?Mark Lincoln 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR has nothing to say about carefully reading anything. Gwen Gale 14:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would endorse what Gwen says about the purpose of this talk page. It is for discussing article, not theories. It is for proposing new text, discussing specifically that text and whether it is supported by cites, and objecting to text that isn't. It is not this talk page's place, nor is it our place as Wikipedians, to be discussing merits of theories. We report what other reliable sources say, not what our personal views are. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but the facts mam

There seems to be a misunderstanding that because I have and state opinions and arguments on the discussion page I am determined to 'slant' the article against the various speculative theories.

I have not edited those theories. I have stated my opinion that they are part of the story and that they might best be written by people who hold those positions. Thus if I am guilty of violating a NPOV, it is in favor of those theories by omission.

Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed. I have stated my position, and proven it by what I have not done.

Do the various alternative views need to be rebutted in the article as they by inclusion in the article rebut what has been the generally - overwhelmingly - accepted view for 70 years?

I can whip out the books and start blasting, but I do not think it is the "Blasting Conspiracy Theories about Amelia Earhart's Disappearance Article."

Some folks will not be happy until Bolam's secret diary turns up, the cave on Gardner Island that AE and Noonan hid the Electra in is discovered, or Elvis Yamamoto returns from Shangri La Prefect in his UFO and confesses to offing them on Saipan.

I have no "pet" theory, I do see what has been the accepted "most probable cause" for the loss of the aircraft and occupants for over 70 years as just that and nothing more.Mark Lincoln 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand you're writing here in good faith Mark. However, this is not a forum. If you want to include your interpretations in the article, you must back them up with verifiable citations from independent sources which directly support your assertions. Moreover, you cannot assemble citations for the purpose of constructing your own interpretation. If you dispute the conclusions of a cited source in the article, you must cite a specific criticism of that conclusion in a verifiable source. Please read WP:OR thoroughly if you haven't done and no, with all due respect to your helpful intentions, this public wiki is not Dragnet, it is Wikipedia, WP:V. Cheers. Gwen Gale 14:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen. I take it that you are just dense. I have supplied verifiable sources for what I have contributed. You are the one who insists that your opinion should be taken as fact, not I. Is Ric Gillespie's "Finding Amelia" unaccetable to you? Why? Because at the end he was honest enough to put the whole telegram in, even though he must have understood that someone reading it carefully would catch the part about the sextant in the box? Why is that reference so threatening to you that you wig out Gwen? I think now that the other editors have a verifiable reference - and it is hard to claim that Mr. Gillespie is Hostile to the Gardner Island hypothesis - and if you suffered from a degree of intellectual honesty, you would alter the article to reveal the extreme doubts expessed in the telegram that the skeleton was Earharts, and include the information that the sextant box contained a sextant that Noonan could not have used for navigating an airplane. I will not change it Gwen. I am not going to make a big stink over it. Are you going to be honest and maintain a NPOV Gwen?75.50.215.92 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Mark Lincoln

No need to go on about it, please provide the citations, is all. As for your kind and helpful question, Why is that reference so threatening to you that you wig out Gwen? thank you for trying to help me cope with my many and sundry emotions, however there are no worries. I am neither threatened nor wigged out by your posts. Meanwhile, you might want to have a shufti at WP:NPA if you haven't already. All the best. Gwen Gale 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull--this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,

(b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10,

(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."

- Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

Is that an 'interpretation' by me Gwen? Is that "Original Research" on my part Gwen?Mark Lincoln 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, the person I see lacking citations is you. You start spouting OR, and OP, but where are your citations to justify allowing this line to stand as 'proof' that Amelia was found: "For example, in 1940, Gerald Gallagher, a British colonial officer (also a licensed pilot) radioed his superiors to inform them that he believed he had found Earhart's skeleton, along with a sextant box, under a tree on the island's southeast corner." - Wikipedia

How can we say "he believed he had found Earhart's skeleton" Gwen? He clearly didn't. He stated "a very slight chance." A long, long way from believing he had.

Why do you think the folks at Tighar usually forget to mention the sextant found in the box Gwen? Do you wish to be honest in the Gardener Island section and state that the sextant box contained an 'old fashioned' sextant that would have been useless to Noonan?

Or will you just leave a lie by omission in place?

I won't fiddle with it Gwen, it is yours, do as you see fit.

I keep any 'speculation' and 'opinion' to these discussions and stick to what can be known for the article.

Just because I have plenty of books to reference - including one by Mr. TIGHAR himself, Ric Gillespie, doesn't mean you can reject my references without having checked them. Nor does it mean you can keep screaming "no references." Just because you refuse to read them. Had you bothered to read Fred Noonan's memo which discussed the problems he had with RDF bearings? I cited it Gwen.

Have you read Lockheed Report 487, specifically the chart prepared by Kelly Johnson showing "Recommended Flight Proceedure" "Data for Obtaining Optimum Range." ? Are you suggesting the detailed instructions written for Earhart to follow when trying to achive optimum range should be disregarded just because it is source material? Would it help to say it has been published on the CD accompanying Gillespie's book, "Finding Amelia"? Is that book not a valid source of reference?

The Gardner Island section states "Earhart and Noonan may have flown for two-and-a-half hours along the standard line of position Earhart noted in her last transmission received at Howland." What is a "standard line of position"? Damned if I know. A "Line of Position" is just a line. It expresses a line on a map which is related to the position of a celestial object at a particular moment in time. Chances are you are at some point on or near that LOP when you took the sighting. There are no "standard" LOPs.

I am not suggesting a change Gwen. But at least I have a clue.

You accuse me of 'picking' my references - I guess because you don't like them. I think I have added signifcantly to the article. And my sources are the source of that. I didn't speculate or opine, about the inherient inaccuracies of RDF, I cited the work of Fred Noonan and a history of aircraft navigation up to 1941. I didn't give an opinion of Fred Noonan by myself, or cite barroom gossip. I cited one of the top Captains with Pan Am at the time as to what Noonan was doing and how just months before the flight.

You favor an opinion for which not one single piece of evidence exists. Ok by me, but do not scream 'no references' when I have cited plenty. And I was not able to cite Grooch on Noonan and Wright on aircraft navigation BECAUSE I had them, had read them, and understood where they could assist the reader in undestanding the article. It might interest you that the guy who does the radio analysis for TIGHAR also cites an old "Radio Amatuer's Handbook" as a source for information on antenna designs and propagation. . .

I keep my opinion out of what I edit. Do you?75.50.215.92 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Some folks think a 28 year old British civil servant (and licensed pilot) on Gardner who found a woman's skull associated with European artifacts 3 years after Earhart's disappearance and thought it might be hers, would likely have been exceedingly circumspect and cautious in how he, as a responsible colonial officer in the British foreign office, communicated that opinion to his superiors in Fiji but whatever. If you knew more about how British civil servants working for the FO dealt with each other during the 1930s, you might understand what I mean.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Your apparent assertion that Gardner was so thoroughly searched in 1937 that AE and FN could not possibly have landed there is not supported, either by citations provided by you on this talk page or by any other sources I'm aware of. If you knew more about Nikumaroro (never mind its tide-swept NW reef flat in 1937, looming wreckage of the SS Norwich City and all), you might understand what I mean.

Meanwhile for all I know they wound up 5 miles below the surface of the Pacific within 100 NM of Howland. Happily, my personal opinion doesn't matter here and neither does yours. It's all about building articles from verifiable sources, WP:V, WP:RELIABLE, WP:WEIGHT, that's the pith.

You're new here. Welcome. Your use of the terms "spouting" and "dense" in describing my attempts to help you understand WP policy is, I think, not helpful. For the third time, I respectfully ask you to thoroughly review (not skim) WP:NPA. You do have my best wishes, but you're the one making the assertions here and unless you can provide meaningful citations to support those many assertions, I'm afraid you're using this talk page as a forum, which is not supported by the written policies of this public wiki. Thanks. Gwen Gale 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, for the third time. My citation is the complete telegram frrom Gallagher to Barley as published in Ric Gillespie's book "Finding Amelia" on page 241. What is yours?

I cite something twice and you ignore it both times. That is not a lack of citation on my part.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

As you have not cited any source that Gallagher "believed he had found Earhart's skeleton," and refuse to consider my specific citation and twice posting the entire telegram which makes it clear he did not believe that.

This is tiring Gwen. You go right ahead toss in a third claim I have no citations.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Folks, I said enough, and rose to Gwen's bait. I intend to go work on the Air Racing article as it badly needs a transfusion from my library. I am to young to be a member of Quiet Birdmen, but I will play one for a while on the internet.

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough said

If there is an editor who insists upon inserting opinion into the factual body of the article and that is ok with the rest of the editors then I am not going to have anything further to say.

Just one observation: It would be wrong for the Article to not state that there were report of radio signals which were felt at the time might have - even did -originated from AE.

A great deal of effort was made to search the Phoenix Islands in no small part because of possible radio intercepts from that area.

It would be wrong for the Article to state that there WERE signals definetly heard from AE. The reasons for this are simple. She could not transmit from the water and all possible places for her to land were searched and the airplane never found.

There will always be grey areas. The Article caters to those who wish to see black cats in the grey areas by expending electrons on the various alternative theories. Those who favor those theories should ensure that their opinions are (in proportion) expressed in the appropriate section.

What would do harm to the veracity of the story is to have facts misrepresented or suppressed by opinion in the factual body of the article.

It is up to you guys.

I have nothing more to say75.50.215.92 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

You haven't provided any citations. Gwen Gale 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull--this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,

(b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10,

(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."

- Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

For one last time, OK?75.50.215.92 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

In reviewing the latest revisions, it appears that there are citations but the format used was inconsistent so that the reference source did not always appear first, making it seem that the note or quote provided was the source. I have corrected the format of the citations to reflect the source and additional information follows. FWIW Bzuk 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Does anyone else out there have the book and CD "Finding Amelia"?Mark Lincoln 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have it on order. Gwen Gale may have it. FWIW Bzuk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

I have had it for a while, but just got around to reading it. I was wondering what would be the best way to cite materials included on the CD? What about when they have created a link on the CD to later material on their web site? That CD has a wealth of information some of which, I know from personal experience, was very hard to track down. One question which I had not considered but seems to have been raised recently is what we used to call "Source Material." The "Lockheed Report 487" written by the aircraft designers Clarence "Kelly" Johnson and W.C. Noland for AE is probably the definitive source on what techniques had to be followed to achieve optimum range/duration in the L-10E. If I cite it, am I guilty of "Original Research"? What if I cite the report by he Senior Aviator on the Colorado to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, about his search of Gardner Island? If these have been used by the authors of books cited in the AE article, is it still "Original Research" if someone cites their source material?Mark Lincoln 19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia you do not have the freedom of a Ric Gillespie or an Elgin Long to interpret sources and synthesize your own conclusions (original research) like they did. If you wish to do that, write a book and get it published by a reliable publisher, then cite it here. It's original research if you assemble and cite these sources in support of an interpretive conclusion of your own (WP:OR). On the other hand, if you directly cite what these sources say about what folks said or did, or what an aircraft or a radio was like, or did, or could do, that's WP:V. So far as how to technically cite something from the FA DVD, listing the primary source document title, page number if any within that PS and the DVD itself should do it. Gwen Gale 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not Gwen. Any such analysis has been confined to discussion, not editing.

Have you checked page 241 (epilogue) of Gillespies book?Mark Lincoln 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, this talk page is for discussing edits. You have yet to provide a single citation to support any of your assertions, which if they are not proposed edits, do not belong here under Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, this is my proposal for an edit, although I have stated I did not want to do it. Gillespie quoted the text of the telegram and it shows that the man who reported the skeleton thought it a very small possibility it was Earharts. The "Gardner Island" portion of the article should be edited to make it clear that the man responsible for calling attention to the skeleton doubted it was Earharts, that the sextant box was not evidence one could connect to AE and Noonan.Mark Lincoln 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Gwen, my citation, once again is Gillespie, "Finding Amelia", page 241. Why can't you just look it up Gwen? Why do you just repeat like an automat that: "You have yet to provide a single citation to support any of your assertions, which if they are not proposed edits, do not belong here under Wikipedia policy." I have provided MANY citations Gwen. What about you?

Would I be out of line to ask for a vote on the issue of whether the evidence supports the assertion that Amelia Earhart's skeleton and Fred Noonan's sextant box were found on Gardener Island and was so reported by Gerald B. Gallagher, Officer-in-Charge, Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, to Resident Commissioner Barley, Gilvert and Ellice Islands Colony, September 23, 1940, and quoted in Gillespie, "Finding Amelia," page 241, "Epilogue," or it supports that assertion the author of that telegram doubted the skeleton was Earharts and considered the sextant box "old fashioned"?

This seems silly, but Gwen clearly rejects as a valid citation what Mr. Gillespie considered important enough to end his book with, and does so categorically, without consideration, or knowledge.Mark Lincoln 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already responded to your remark about GG's characterization of the bones.

Meanwhile a vote cannot change original research into a supported assertion. If you have (or can find) a citation in an independent and verifiable source which has interpreted Gallagher's telegram as meaning that in his heart of hearts he didn't think the bones belonged to Earhart (never mind if he felt that way, why he would have even bothered to mention the possibility at all, it's not like he'd been sent there to find AE and FN) then by all means, please bring it up here.

I am only responding to your assertions as they come, and am taking them as proposed edits. Hence, since you're the one making the assertions on this talk page, it's up to you to support them with citations (WP:V, please read it thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks). If your assertions are interpretive original research, you have the freedom of an author like Elgin Long or Ric Gillespie to put them in a book and get it published. If you try to include your personal opinion in the article, it will likely be removed as original research (WP:OR, please read it thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks).

Again, as you have now been asked repeatedly, please try to tone it down and be less combative with other editors (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, please read these thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks). All the best. Gwen Gale 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Differences in interpretation

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007

Gwen the article states that he believed he had found Earhart. The telegram clearly indicates that he did not believe he had, but there was 'very slight chance," that it might be Earhart.

The other editors can read it for themselves.

"Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull--this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that (a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman, (b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10, (c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City." - Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

That is not 'original research' at all Gwen.

It is the man's own words to his boss. He did not think he had found Earhart. Your position that he did think he found Earhart is far closer to what Jimmy Wales was speaking of would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Moreover Gwen, it is published in a book written by the head of TIGHAR, who it seems cares more for veracity than you do. Thus it does not meet the criteria of unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

It takes a totally "novel narrative or historical interpretation" to turn "Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard," (Galligher to Barley) into him believing he had found Earhart, and thence to the positive assertion it was Earhart.

Gwen, I think you are a obstreperous and determined to bias the article as Matt was.Mark Lincoln 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lying? Mark, I've have tried to help you understand how things work here. Meanwhile, you are now in violation of WP:NPA. Please stop. Thank you. Gwen Gale 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, ML. Binksternet 22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, flame thrower off.

When I see someone removing lines from an article - not ones inserted by me - simply on the basis that it is their opinion that there was no evidence any search was that thorough, I find it odd they do not cite that statement. It is Especially odd when it is clear that person is not acquainted with either the source material or scholarship on that point. I find it most curious when two words from an entire sentence are used to create the appearance that the author meant exactly the opposite of what he wrote as was done with Lt. Lambrecht's report. Which I might add IS the source material on that search, and used by many authors on the subject. I also find it very curious that someone would so misrepresent the telegram of Galligher as to make it appear that he thought he had found AE's skeleton. It is also annoying to have someone insist that providing the entire text of his telegram - with a citation as to it's source, and acceptance by other scholars - is "original research' and not a citation at all. One does not - in my estimate - come to a scholarly awareness of a subject by apparently reading a web page and refusing to even consider what the head of the organization that puts up that web page considered source material important enough to quote in toto in his book, a valid reference. Mr. Gillespie and I might disagree on points of analysis, but he does try to be thorough and honest.Mark Lincoln 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One other point. I see the page developing. Juices are flowing, book pages are flipping. People are contributing. I agree, this is discussion is not a forum. It is a discussion page about the Amelia Earhart Article. However many electrons we are expending in shooting it out, it seems to have had a stimulating effect on contributors. As I pointed out to someone we have a far better understanding of what we know now than we did 40 years ago. This is because for a number of reasons - most of all controversy. A great deal of scholarship has been done on Amelia Earhart and her disappearance in the last 20 years. I have done NO 'original research' on AE if it means coming up with new explanations, or novel theories. I have gone over 40 years from strongly questioning the accepted knowledge to having accepted it. This does not mean that I am not eager for new knowledge. The discovery of the Collopy Letter was a great thing. I had to reconsider a number of things because of it. Perhaps we will have a 'final answer,' some day. I doubt it.Mark Lincoln 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited material which is questioned or disputed may be removed. WP:V, WP:OR. Cheers. Gwen Gale 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen is a broken record, record, record. I have citations Gwen, what about you? I even read the Wikipedia concerning "Original Material."

Turns out your description seems at variance. Citing source material IS NOT original research. Nor is citing source material cited by other authors.

You just keep playing your broken record Gwen. The rest of us will continue to make valid and cited contributions to the article.Mark Lincoln 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I take this taunting as a personal attack. Given that, where did I ever say you can't cite source material? Erm and oh, by the bye that's original research, not "original material." Cheers anyway. Gwen Gale 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gwen. I trained as an engineer and minored in history. I never was a fiction writer, and seldom read it. The reason I seldom read fiction is that I find so much more of the real world in fact. I have what many would see as an unreasonable attachment to facts, engineering, reality and non-fiction. You have a nice evening.Mark Lincoln 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I read mostly non-fiction myself, have for donkeys' years. I deal with engineers professionally almost every day. Moreover, there are a few in my family. Why did you bring up fiction? Have you been talking to a little birdy? Thanks and have a nice evening yourself. Gwen Gale 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Birdy talk is cheep. I spend much of my time reading technical manuals and such. That is seldom cheap, nor is it usually pleasant reading. I never could write fiction. I just don't have a good fantasy in my life. Well, not since I was 15 and had a copy of Playboy. . . Mark Lincoln 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

TMs, I've written a few. Gwen Gale 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a guilty party. My motto is "when everything else fails, read the manual." Actually not. I usually read it at least three times. Once without trying to comprehend, just to find out what is there. The second time to make sense of it. The third is to figure out what part of it applies to my problem. My most important 'research facility" is the back yard hammock.Mark Lincoln 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

---

It is now a juncture where all editors should take a deep breath and look seriously at a "cool off" period. Everyone is acting in "good faith" but emotions around a controversial issue can get heated. The "talk page" of an article is intended to provide a forum to talk about the article, let's keep that in mind. FWIW, I am about to archive some of the discussions as we are running at 230 kb, IMHO, waaaay beyond the usual file size. Bzuk 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Evaluation for A-Class

I would recommend waiting for any effort to have this article reevaluated. There is supposed to be a serious history of the search for AE coming out this month. As this would be an account about the search, not necessarily tied to any authors personal theory of where she ended up, it might be very helpful to our efforts.Mark Lincoln 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I entirely agree, as one of the major elements to address is "stability" which until recently was manifest but now the article will have to work out all contenious issues and achieve a consensus-driven appraisal by all editors who have significantly contributed to the development of the Amelia Eahart article. BTW, my intention was actually to recommend the article as a "Good Article" candidate. FWIW Bzuk 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Each author of a 'theory' book has had reasons to shade the coverage of the search. An author dedicated to covering the search might well make an important contribution. I don't know what the order of march to Wiki-article Sainthood is. You guys will have to take care of that.Mark Lincoln 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not seen any serious search attempt as yet, Oct.6,2008. It is known since 1996 [publication] that no other land point than Howland could be reached with the 1912 GMT fuel reserves, special Av gas included. Desertfax (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Desertfax

Chilling revelations

I typed "Original Research" into the search bar of the Wikipedia.

It returned the following definition: "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form."

Citing source material is not 'original research unless it fulfills the conditions of the second sentence, "to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form." Thus citing source material used by other authors in "summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research," is NOT original research unless it is used to present a novel concept or knowledge.

The charge of "Original Research" is not a cure-all for facts that one does not like. Nor is someone who cites source material guilty. Especially if that source material is used by other authors which have already made it part of the body of knowledge on the subject. Most certainly we cannot exclude a scholar's quotation and attribution of source material under the definition of the Wikipedia.

Controversy is not necessarily an evil - that is to say destructive - thing.

I will continue to cite Mr. Gillespie, and the source materials he has used. I will also continue to cite source material used by other authors.

How can we evaluate the veracity of those authors we cite unless we occasionally compare their statements with their sources?

Mr. Gillespie was honest enough to end his book with a citation which a romantic reader could read one way and in which a critical reader could find quite different meaning. If he was dishonest he would have not quoted it at all, for he is a proponent of the Gardner Island Hypothesis - unless he was a fool, and I have read nothing in his book to make me think that.Mark Lincoln 00:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Final approach

I included a quote from the Captain of the Itasca to convey the tension in the last broadcast received from AE. I did NOT include it because it ended with the word "incomplete" because such an assertion would support the position of Elgen Long. I disagree !!!OPINION!!! with Mr. Long. The fact that AE indicated she was switching to 6210 and was never heard again does not prove she ran out of gas at that moment. My reasons are two-fold - MORE OPINION NOT INSERTED INTO THE ARTICLE - I have no idea of her exact fuel state at that time, and it is unlikely that the Itasca could have heard her because of limitations of it's receiver. In MY OPINION Mr. Long has evidenced more understanding of the navigation methods in use at the time and how they would have been utilized by Mr. Noonan than any other author. Still there are IN MY OPINION, instances in his book where he clearly shades the arguments and evidence in favor of his theory.

There were other people in the radio room of the Itasca who had similar opinions of the tenor of Earhart's last certain broadcast. I could have cited those references - from the same source - but did not ONLY because of the conciseness of the Captains description.Mark Lincoln 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrast and perception

I spent almost 20 years of my life profoundly dependent upon an understanding of color, perception and contrast to make my living. I did lots of high resolution scanning of photographs, as well as color correcting and retouching them. I was using PhotoShop before it became a common concept (PS 2.0).

Someone removed reference to the colors of the Electra and it not being seen on Gardner Island. In page 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2 and 3 of his report Lt. Lambrecht reported that "Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll. . . (his elipsis) a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coranodo's silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms."

It is clear that an airplane mostly colored silver (but as I understand it also with orange on the top of the wings) would present a most striking contrast to the island or it's surrounding waters. What was it about the mention of the aircraft (indisputably silver) that cause the reference to it not being found? I am not rushing to replace it. But I do ask why the idea of a silver airplane not being found on a mostly green Island, or mostly beige (above water) or blue (underwater) reef or green Island that made it necessary to remove it? Why in a natural world of curves and fractals would not a harsh silver and angular airplane stand out?

I am not using my 'experience" at color correction as "original research" or "qualification" for an entry in the article. At what point do the rules of Wikipedia overrule those of common sense?Mark Lincoln 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was bright unpainted aluminium (silver) with orange bands here and there. If they landed on the vast, tide swept NW reef flat and the Electra got knocked about by the rising tides before Lambrecht got there for the overflight, the partially submerged aircraft's proximity to the looming wreckage of the SS Norwich City could have easily caused searchers to muddle it with debris from the ship (never mind the Electra would have been more or less but a speck in comparison) [1]. Oh and the reef flat is not green, it's light brown and polished aluminium reflects light which is to say, at certain angles it could have taken on the same colour as the coral and blended right in with reef, waves and wreckage. Lastly, Nikumaroro is a lot bigger than it looks. Gwen Gale 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I might add that from almost the earliest arrival of Gilbertese colonists (along with Gallagher) in late 1938, there were rumours of aircraft wreckage on the island. Children were told to stay away from it, the stories sometimes related that the skeletons of a man and a woman were somehow involved, the Gilbertese made all kinds of stuff out of scavenged Alcoa aircraft aluminium and at least one living witness who was raised there as a child says she saw bits of airplane wreckage out on the reef flat several times. Gwen Gale 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding - and I have seen NO photograph which shows it, that it had orange upon the top of the wings inset from the edges as was the pattern used by PAA. Under any circumstances such would be quite visible. If they landed on the reef they could not have sent messages. The reef is shown in photos from Gillespies book and it shows quite distinct differences in depth. (the density of the photo varies with the depth of the water). The chances of the Electra landing in shallow water with the gear down and not flipping over are slim, a conventional gear, know known rudely as a "tail dragger" is very prone to nosing over when undue breaking or drag is induced (witness AE flipping her Vega at NAS Norfolk some years before), the chances of it landing on such an uneven surface while exposed are equally slim.

.:::Rumors are worth about 10 cents at any fact swap meet.Mark Lincoln 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bright aluminum should have stood in sharp contrast to eight years of rust and growth on a shipwreck. The sun reflecting off the waves, though; that would have been tough competition for shiny metal at certain angles of viewing. One would expect that searchers in aircraft would have criss-crossed the island, lessening the likelihood of viewing angle phenomena messing with their results. BTW, Gilbertese folk must have guessed what the curious foreigners wanted to hear. Did they ever take a researcher out to see the remaining plane bits or did they show off their collection of silvery metal Electra remnants? Binksternet 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about more than rumours here and Gilbertese kids were told by their Gilbertese parents to stay away from the wreckage and they gave these parently warnings without a European in sight. Whatever might have been on that tide-swept reef couldn't be found by 1992. Moreover, Nikumaroro is a much bigger and far more complicated place than it appears to be from a satellite photo or a map. Everything you brought up is reasonable and possible and has been deeply and thoughtfully discussed by hundreds of researchers but given the wide range of documented evidence and artifacts, the possibilities you raise don't eliminate the possibility of the wreckage having been there. The article cites the Gardner Island hypothesis not as fact, but as a hypothesis which is widely cited as credible. Our personal opinions can't go in the article. Only the interpretations of writers in verifiable, published sources can go in the article according to policies like WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Cheers. Gwen Gale 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As a number of editors have already said, all this musing about the possibility of the Electra crashing on Gardner (Nikumaroro) is fine on the discussion page because it is relevant to topics already established in the main body of the article. The original statements that were honed after a long period of editing and discussion were that two Earhart/Noonan disappearance theories predominate with researchers and historians. These theories involve crashing at sea in close proximity to Howland Island or on land at Gardner Island. Other theories do not have the same support from Earhart scholars. FWIW Bzuk 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Helpfully said, Bzuk. Though after a few dozen kilobytes, uncited musing can easily be taken as proposed edits expressing only original research. The Gardner Island hypothesis runs much deeper than the summary in the article (which I think is of a helpful length and need not necessarily be expanded): It seems to me that some editors have started off by "arguing" against the limited, superficial summary of the GIH carried in the article without understanding that their questions have been addressed at length in the hypothesis itself and that the article is only citing published sources for the purpose of encyclopedic summary. I don't think this talk page is the place for general discussion and debate of the topic, but only for discussing how specific, verifiable sources might be used to make the article more helpful to readers and... I humbly suggest WP policy wholly supports what I'm saying:

Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the m:Wikibate proposal.)

All the best! Gwen Gale 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio options when running out of gas

When the engine started sputtering and running out of fuel, what radio transmission options were open to Earhart? Of course she'd be busy trying to set the machine down as safely as possible but would the radio still be working right after the engine ran out of gas? Would it have remained working as long as the propellor was windmilling? Did the charged battery allow radio operation for a time after fuel was spent? If so, how long a time? Binksternet 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Only from memory here, not long, the battery drain was fast and the transmitter and receiver were wholly separate valve devices but... from what I understand she certainly could have transmitted for a minute or two on the remaining charge. I've read a full description of how the battery in her Electra was charged however I don't know if the dynamo would have spun along with a windmilling propeller. Either way I'm sure that if everything was working as it should she could have made a last transmission whilst readying to ditch (and that this can be supported with some kind of a cite). Gwen Gale 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary purpose of the Battery was to start the engines. That fact alone indicates that it also had some reserve when not required for that drain. There was a secondary battery intended to give an alternative - if less substantial - source of power for instruments and radios if the first one was exhausted. We do know that they blew the fuse on the generator flying to Hawaii, by 4:50 HST they were on battery power. They landed at 5:55 with everything working. I do not know if they had to use the backup battery. Thus we can know that she had at least an hour of both radios left when the engine quit. I have never been able to determine just how long the primary or secondary batteries would support operation of the Transmitter and Receiver. I would need to know more about how many amp hours, and voltage of the batteries as well as how many amps the transmitter and receiver both drew. I do know that operating the engine at the required 900 rpm would use almost 6 gallons per hour. I also am quite aware that a dead stick (engines off) landing on land is not something one choses if one has an option. I also know that a dead stick ditching is even less attractive, Would Earhart have chosen to actually run out of fuel or land first. I cannot say. I am not a "psychic psychiatrist."

I guess the ultimate questions are how much fuel did she have, how accurate were her fuel gages, and what was her switchology at the time. IF she switched to 6210 and tried to transmit she might well have simply not been heard. As I have stated before the pucker factor had to be intense. She had been up for over 24 hours. I can 'estimate' from prior example that she had at least 1 hour of time to talk and listen if she was not in the water. Shit stacks up.Mark Lincoln 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about an hour, the two radios took lots of amperes but it may have been more than a few minutes. Remember, they never did establish two-way voice contact with Howland. Who knows what frequencies they tried (yes, we can speculate as to what they were) or what they were thinking after that. I would characterize some discussions I've seen on their fuel supply as approaching the character of a religious debate. That said, the argument that they were totally out of fuel near Howland requires an unsupported assumption of headwinds and other speculations. In general, the notion is that when she said they were low on fuel, this meant she was cutting into what she perceived as her reserve and I've read convincing arguments they had plenty of fuel to fly the LOP to Gardner. Gwen Gale 03:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What I know as I have not been able to find out how many amps the receiver and transmitter drew is what happened on the flight to Hawaii. We know about when the generator went off line and we know when they landed. The rest is deduction. What I cannot tell you is if they were down on an island on their belly, (see Lambrechts opinion of landing chances on Gardener) how long they could operate their radios. Or if their electrical system would have been intact enough to function. I grew up in the age of the vacuum tube and know that it would take a minute or two - to 'warm' up the dynamotor and transmitter to the point where it would achieve full power. This is all assuming they had no serious damage to the airplane. My 'best guess" (OPINION, don't ask me to put it in the article) is that they probably had at least one hour of operation. The other question is how much "gain" they would have gotten from a "less than optimum" (to quote the TIGHAR radio guy) length under 1/8 wave, V-type antenna sitting less than six feet off the ground. The answer is probably - but not definitely - not much. We are looking at an actual output from the antenna of perhaps 10-20 watts with a horizontal polarity and bad angle. Perhaps they were heard. Odds are they were not. (I repeat this is OPINION). Still we need to consider these things. My guess is that Earhart (OPINION) could have transmitted and received for at least 1 hour. That she could have done one or the other longer. One must remember that a dynamotor was a pretty inefficient means of turning low DC voltage into high voltage AC for radio communications, thus the receiver alone would have more operational life than the transmitter (once again, we do not know how many minutes the xmitter or receiver were on during the Hawaii flight, but a good guess is that they both ran all the time). That the propagation characteristics of her antenna and the frequencies she was able to operate on severely limited any possible range. I find it far easier to think that reports of a 'weak carrier" or 'feeble and unintelligible" communications being hear are far more likely than someone who claimed to hear her 4/5.

The bottom line - in my humble (and we all know how humble I am) - opinion is that given the best of circumstances, they would have had at least one hour of radio time left if they were out of fuel.Mark Lincoln 03:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The question of head winds. Both the last forecast sent to Earhart and Noonan and their reported conditions agree. It is most likely that they were encountering headwinds as high as 23 knots. It is also certain from her reports that they had climbed considerably above the optimum altitudes early in the flight and thus had to have had considerable additional fuel consumption. I would refer you to Kelly Johnson's instructions prepared for Earhart on the flight profile necessary to achieve optimum range. Given the variables which we cannot know, I would imagine that she had 1-2 hours reserve by the time she reached the vicinity of Howland - but that might be optimistic. I cannot know how much fuel she had. One radio log indicates she stated 1/2 hour (but did that include the remainder of 100 octane?). One thing for certain is that she did state she was "low on fuel" and that cannot be reasonably interpreted as meaning she was "fat." This is OPINION, but given the anxiety she seemed to have in her voice and her use of the term 'low on fuel," coupled with the forecast and reported (by her) winds, it is probable that they were far less than the optimum 4-5 hours given still air and best altitude operations would have made possible.

Mr. Gillespie can dismiss her report of ground speed and winds aloft as well as the far higher than optimum altitude she reported less than half way into the flight with the term "speculation" (in a foot note). No one did at the time, nor can I. (OPINION- but) Though this is my Opinion, I CAN document several aspects of it including the airplane designers instructions and how his instructions for an optimum profile differed from her report. Her reports and how they coincided with the last forecast the USN sent her from Hawaii. And thus how if Kelly Johnson was right, True had not incompetently read the information about winds aloft from reporting stations near her path, and she was not lying; then she MUST have had significantly higher fuel consumption than the optimum profile would have produced. How much, that is a question I cannot specifically answer. But for all three to be totally wrong, for there have been still air, for True to have been incompetent in his interpretation of winds aloft reports, and Earhart to have been lying about the "winds" she reported and her "speed" takes a bit of "speculation" I cannot indulge in. Mistakes were made, but I can't imagine everyone made exactly the right combination of mistakes and deceptions to allow the Electra to have achieved it's optimum performance on the flight. Given the time which they apparently (from reports and signal strength) spent searching for Howland Island, it is unlikely that they had a big reserve when the last signal was heard (OPINION).Mark Lincoln 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Options when running out of gas.

You have two. One is to pick the spot where you want to land, the other is to let Sir Isaac Newton pick it for you. Mark Lincoln 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Revising estimate. I have been flipping through a number of books to try and determine how much they actually transmitted during that last hour of the flight into Hawaii. It appears they were mostly using the receiver with the DF loop and thus were not 'communicating." Therefore I must say that we know the battery could keep the equipment running, but we don't know how fast it would be drained by extensive transmission.Mark Lincoln 10:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio sections

I'm sorry Bzuk, through a dumb coincidence we both began editing at the same moment, likely after the same notion of NPoV.

I think the radio signals should go in two sections, "known" (Howland) and "maybe but not convincing to all sources." Any verifiable secondary source, fully formed interpretations as to whether or not these post-loss signals were from AE and FN are as always, welcome. Cheers! Gwen Gale 02:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The way it was set up before was "Radio signals". I don't believe there is a case to be made for "maybe not convincing radio signals?" At this point, all information is left in including information about "possible" signals and even a proviso about the controversy regarding the so-called post-loss signals. Going any further starts to become advocation rather than information. FWIW Bzuk 02:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

I'm the one who put in that proviso about controversy concerning the post loss signals. That body of signals (whatever their origin) is clear and distinct from the signals logged at Howland (make sure ya go by the original "rough" logs though :) The "Post-loss signals" section deals only with post-loss radio signals and I think this will be more than helpful for readers who are not familiar with the topic. Gwen Gale 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you wrote the section with a clear direction; all that is suggested is that all the radio signals are to be examined as a whole. But the article with a "Confirmed" and "Maybe" sub-titles now states somewhat of an advocacy that was not present in earlier edits. Having even the term "post-loss" was the subject of a massive discussion. There does not seem to be "clear and distinct" origins to the signals but that there is an importance attached to radio signals is important to emphasize. Stating there are confirmed and may be confirmed signals is misleading. There are confirmed signals and signals that cannot be confirmed which is what the text indicates at this point and there is verification for these statements. FWIW Bzuk 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

• There are no "Confirmed" and "Maybe" sub-titles. What do you mean?
• "clear and distinct origins" is not in any way what I said. I wrote "That body of signals... is clear and distinct" as a section of text.

However, if you interpret the text as saying that some post-loss signals have been confirmed as having been from Earhart, some sources do agree with that interpretation. Truth be told I was trying to sway the text away from that PoV, which I happen to (more or less) share. Gwen Gale 03:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Confirmed" and "Maybe" Рa little literary license?! [:º. As to the rest, we're on the same page. I agree that radio signals are important in understanding the last flight but the fact that some sources agree and some don't about the "post-loss" (and again, just when did that take place??) is also useful to know. FWIW Bzuk 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

Which is why I would like to separate the "controversial" signals into a post-loss section. However, your way is friendlier to my PoV so I shan't have a cow :) Gwen Gale 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thou shant "have a cow?" Prithee, is thine from Elizabethan England through some time warp? [:¬∆ Bzuk 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

Dunno 'bout prithee but your conjugation of the second person singular pronoun in English is... lacking: Art thou from... this is for thee... this is thy Wikipedia talk page, it is thine account... whatever it is, it's thine and so on. Next, I picked up a lot of English (erm, American) slang in LA during the 1980s when I was but a wee 'n wide eyed tyke and anyway, I'll have you know the phrase have a cow (meaning get upset, kind of) is in the script of Sixteen Candles (1984) which, along with Splash (film) were big docking cultural touchstones for 8 whole weeks of my life O_o so I mean, the usage is supported, 'k? Gwen Gale 04:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

semi-protect tag

I agree a semi-protect tag has some unquantifiable psychological value in deterring vandalism to this high-profile topic visited by so many middle schoolers who likely get bored fast hearing tiresome social myths from their well-meaning but sometimes clueless teachers about AE as a "feminist icon" or whatever (she was so cool but... after all :) Anyway the tag mustn't be there if the page isn't truly protected, cuz it gives an even more misleading sense of safety from the graffiti. I think the page could always be under semi-protection, but on the other hand, enough editors watch this page that unhelpful stuff gets rv'd rather soon anyway. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the protection tag should go as well. The problem with it is that it discourages good anon editors (who may see the tag without realizing the page isn't really protected), while at the same time does not prevent the average passerby vandals to post graffiti. Tizio 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there are helpful drive-by anons, I see them all the time (erm, though I must say, not on this article, dunno why). Gwen Gale 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I only saw that the tag has a teeny-tiny affect on the vandals, but it was getting tedious to keep applying for some form of protection. FWIW Bzuk 15:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC).

Yeah. On the other hand, believe it or not even articles like Sodium get it as much as this one does. Gwen Gale 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sub-article proposed

I propose that Amelia Earhart in popular culture be created and the popular culture section be moved there. First, because the core article is already "too" long and second, because AE is mentioned so often in popular culture that most of these references are not notable. Marilyn Monroe, for example, is handled this way: The article's "see also" section lists a sub-article for MM in pop culture. Gwen Gale 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'd propose integrating the "laundry list" of "Other honors" into either that new sub-article, or another one, too. Naming a school or whatever after AE happens often enough, it's not notable. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to oppose the suggested change to the popular culture section due to a recent ruling in the Howard Hughes article [2] wherein the popular culture section was deemed that the historical figure was not sufficiently documented as a cultural icon. It was stated that there is a difference between being famous (which causes one to appear in popular culture) and being "significant to popular culture." This subtle difference is best perceived through sources: are there any books discussing "Amelia Earhart's' transforming influence on popular culture"? I can only identify two reference sources that provide that type of information. Most of the references refer to biographical works. As for the other honours list, it has been "pruned" of late after a preliminary review by other editors. At this point, I would favour keeping the article intact until its submission as a "Good Article" candidate. One of the criteria that has to be met is "stability" which requires a period of time where the article remains essentially as is. FWIW Bzuk 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

I'd say Earhart's influence on popular culture is more akin to Monroe's. Gwen Gale 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See comments above especially directed to the need for "stability", although I can see a case for the change after the GA submission, with the requisite additional reference sources tied more closely to the iconic aspects of Earhart. FWIW Bzuk 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if breaking off the popular culture stuff into a sub-article would affect stability at all (I think not. though). Maybe it would even help towards GA IMHO :) Gwen Gale 00:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think stability means making major changes?! FWIW Bzuk 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

I think "stability" has to do with the main text, along with the absence of any meaningful disputes or whatever. I think skiving off a popular culture list into its own article might even imply enhanced stability along with less "clutter" and a more helpful length. I mean, yeah, look into it but you know, now having thought specifically now about your comments and GA, I think it would only help. Again, only IMHO. Gwen Gale 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am merely stating that a period of stability is required preliminary to a GA review now that major contentious issues have been addressed. Adding another dimension by splitting off sub-articles does not need to happen at this point. The article is appropriate in terms of length (other biographical articles are approximately the same size- AE is 86 kb, Abraham Lincoln is 96 kb, Elvis Presley is 105 kb), the two sections have recently been revised to eliminate trivial or non-notable submissions and this change was not identified in an initial review of the article, pre-coniption time. I will gladly support dwarfing off after the GA submission. FWIW Bzuk 01:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

Well I don't want to keep sounding like the "inclusionist", but as you know I tend to argue on keeping sections in one article. I can't say I have any strong argument for this, I just hate navigating to subpages that wouldn't be considered articles on their own, and only existed because they were clipped from some other one. But I can't help but get the feeling that this is perhaps not the best example? It's only one page out of fourteen in my browser. It doesn't seem that long to me. Maury 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia policy has lots of sway sway here. At 80k, this article falls spot on between "probably should be" and "almost certainly should be" divided up. Can citing the excessive length of other articles on Wikipedia (especially ones like Abraham Lincoln and Elvis Presley which each have long-standing problems of their own) trump or skirt WP policy? Moreover, I still think Marilyn Monroe is a helpful example: Earhart and Monroe, even with their many and sundry differences, are two of the most widely noted popular female icons of 20th century north America and the Monroe article indeed neatly splits pop references into a sub-article. WP:Summary Style starkly notes even 30k can be too long (...but generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long...) and over all, treats sub-articles as a widely helpful aspect of Wikipedia's concise, encyclopedic style: Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs.[3] Gwen Gale 14:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

At this juncture in the article's history, I would prefer that all relevant sections remain intact until at least the GA submission is made, and reiterating an earlier concern, "stability" is addressed by a period of time wherein the article remains basically "as is." After the GA review, I will support any other changes that need to be made. FWIW, the article on AE is an important biographical example that falls into the category of "probably should be" divided but doesn't necessarily have to be yet, and there are countless longer biographical articles that are examples of articles where length has exceeded 100 kb. Pruning of the sections in contention is still recommended, however. Bzuk 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

So you're saying that since this article is an "important biographical example" and up for GA, Wikipedia policy does not apply...? I ask this since I think conformance with WP policy would much enhance any likelihood it'll make GA. Cheers. Gwen Gale 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well before the policy debate goes any further, consider this: the article has four pages of refs. By the logic expressed in the thread above, we should remove all the refs to "Amelia Earhart (references)". Yes, I'm playing the donkey, but again, it really doesn't seem to long to me. Or important: I'm surprised the debate isn't about whether or not to keep the section at all. Maury 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh Maury, I so understand the helpful spirit of your point about the references but don't think it's a fitting metaphor at all. I mean, the more references the merrier, the end. Also, you know, I wouldn't characterize this as a policy debate and certainly not as a dispute. I wholly support Bzuk's notion of getting the article GA'd forthwith and support the text as it stands. That said, yeah, I think most of the cultural references section is trivial and not notable at all. Mix that up with what I've said about WP policy and article length (I linked to the policies above) and I still think a sub-article would be helpful both to readers and to getting things GA. Gwen Gale 19:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Info on image

Image:Frednoonan earhart2.jpg. It would be interesting for the article if more was given about this photo. Date and place that it was taken? Similarly other photos would benefit from more information of date and place in the caption. Snowman 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The photograph as used, is only a part of the original photograph that was taken on June 28, 1937 at Darwin, Australia (likely by a newspaper reporter or photographer). The "full" photograph shows that AE is holding a can of oil, while the other equipment strewn on the ground includes a spare control wheel and tail wheel, nitrogen or oxygen cannister and ominously, two parachutes. Inside the Electra, two small cans of tomato juice can be seen. An example of this photograph appears in Finding Amelia: The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance by Ric Gillespie (2006). FWIW Bzuk 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

1. Would the full photograph look better?
2. What does FWIW stand for?
3. Why are the parachutes ominous rather than a reasonable safety precaution? Snowman 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Possibly (although my copy is a bit dark and "muddy" looking).
2. For What It's Worth (not much usually)
3. As for parachutes, there was not a good possibility for their use as Amelia would not be able to extricate herself from the cockpit to use hers but Fred who sat in the rear compartment most times on lengthy legs, would be able to use the rear door to exit. A better safety precaution would have been to have a life raft. FWIW, IMHO, LOL,[4] Bzuk 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

Have you tried photo enhancing software? Snowman 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for a better copy, the photo to which I was referring, is not mine, merely a photograph in a book. B4N [:¬∆ Bzuk 06:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

The new images make the page more interesting IMHO. I wonder if any of the photos have been cropped: the Honolulu photo has the four peoples feet and ankles missing (it is a graphic compilation or montage?), and the Hoover picture is not a natural shape of a photo. The previous caption of the Darwin picture suggests that the perspective is not clear, or it might suggest that it is a montage. It would be interesting (and probably more informative) to see more of the setting, to give a better sense of orientation especially for pictures showing people. Perhaps the full images should be shown (or at least made available on commons), as there appear to be some controversies about the story. The "golden rectangle", the ratio of the sides being the "golden ratio", 1:1.618, is a well recognised pleasing shape for an image. Snowman 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Honolulu photo is apparently a full frame photo and one of a series that was shot over the shoulder of a cinema photographer which is likely why the perspective is slightly forced. The Darwin photograph is definitely cropped but I could not find another example in suitable resolution and clarity to replace it. It would appear that some if not all the photos in this article are derived from publications and in that case, many of them were cropped to fit available spaces, for example, the photograph of the Lockheed Electra is severely cropped. BTW, are you a photog? that was one of my jobs in a previous life. FWIW Bzuk 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

Looks like the Honolulu photo is taken in a hanger. Snowman 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The photograph was taken just outside the hangar doors, as evidenced by the earlier sequence of photographs, although the Electra is inside the hangar. FWIW (again not much) Bzuk 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

There are some lines on the ground, which I guess are for sliding doors. Snowman 09:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Purdue identifies the photo as taken in "Oakland, California." I will make changes. FWIW Bzuk 13:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

Improved artwork seen and the full Darwin picture helps to set the scene IMHO. Have you got anything more on the photo with her husband looking at something to the left of picture? Is the book cover meant to be a pinkish colour? Were all the pictures at that time in Black and white? Snowman 09:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the original photo of AE and GP in the Purdue University archives and the photo used here is a cropped version. The Purdue archives has another image of the couple that is much better that I will post. The first image can remain on the GP Putnam article so it will not be "orphaned." The book cover is another story, most of the Purdue photographs were reproduced in sepia which was standard for the era, while the book cover is from another time. There are very few original colour photos extant of Amelia Earhart. The image of Amelia in a flight suit was hand-tinted to produce colour. FWIW Bzuk 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

Dear Colleagues, about this photo of AE with the medal: I believe it is not the DFC... it seems for me it is a French Legion of Honor (that AE was also awarded with). Please, can somebody check for sure, and correct the caption if i am right?... Best regards - Alex V Mandel 10:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What a sharpshooter you are, Alex. You are exactly right- this was a formal studio photograph made in France in 1932 on the occasion of her receiving the Cross of Knight of the Legion of Honor from the French Government. Changes will be made. Thanks again, hoping all things are well with you and yours, my friend. Bzuk 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

1. I wonder (I am not sure) if a map might help in the section on disappearance theories and the planned journey and suggested routes can be traced. There is plenty of geography on linked pages though. Snowman 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

2. It looks like there is enough photos to make a chronological sequence for the 1937 world flight with photos taken at various points along the journey. I guess the 17 March 1937 photo was taken to mark the start of the world flight, and perhaps the caption could point this out. The 1936 cockpit photo is out of chronological order, but it is a good photo and might be better placed somewhere else on the page. I do not know enough of the story to change them myself. Snowman 16:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

3. I just noticed one of the foreign language wiki's had a featured article on AE and found this map. It is on commons so would just link here, and talking of wiki commons, it is better to upload photos to wiki commons for use on other language wikis.Snowman 16:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I was very aware of the chronological order of the photographs but chose them more for their relevance to the text. The aspect of having a large number of photographs raises the issues of gallery rather than inline use, and I would rather not go there. There are literally hundreds of images available of Amelia Earhart in public domain collections, how to choose the appropriate or most striking image is then a complication. The usual "standard" for numbers of images is ten for a major article like this would be, and we are waaaay over that number now. A map image may be accommodated especially for the last aspects of the flight, hopefully, it won't provoke more vandalism as evidenced this morning in this section. As for placing images into Commons, as soon as I can get my head on straight. FWIW Bzuk 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

I have unlinked one portrait that was on commons and unlinked another image and then uploaded it to commons. There are now 18 images on the page including two small ones. Are there any more candidates for unlinking and uploading to commons (if not already there)? I have changed the link to commmons to commonscat. Snowman 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

AE's health problems

Dear colleagues, since - as i saw - some kind of "discussion" appeared (as exchange of remarks) about AE's sinus problems, i thought that this attempt (below) to "summarize" the problem on the base of the quotes from different Earhart's biographies may be possibly helpful.

Apparently, the first time when the sinus inflammation problem appeared in AE when she volunteered as a nurse's aid in the Spadina Military Hospital in Toronto, in 1918.

This is how AE describes the appearance of the problem herself: "At the end of my brief hospital career, I became a patient myself. It was probably the case of trying to carry on all day as usual and work all night. Anyway, I collected a bug that took up residence in the inaccessible little hole behind one's cheek called the antrum. The result was several minor operations and a rather long period of convalescence. Some of this was spent at Northampton where my sister was at Smith and the rest of Lake George" - "The Fun Of It" by Amelia Earhart (1932), p.21.

Amelia's sister Muriel wrote in her book: "In the spring of 1918, I moved to Northampton, Massachusetts. Early in November, Amelia was hospitalized by a serious attack of pneumonia. She missed celebrating the Armistice. When she recovered sufficiently to travel, Amelia came to Northampton to stay with me to recuperate. I had rented a small apartment on Bedford Terrace and took care of her while i studied for the four comprehensive entrance examinations required by Smith College" - "Amelia. My Courageous Sister" by Muriel Earhart Morrissey and Carol L.Osborne (1987), p.54. Amelia's biographer Mary S. Lovell wrote: "...When the great influenza epidemic struck, Amelia worked night duty on the pneumonia ward, as the virus attacked the patients and staff alike. It is hardly surprising that before long she, too, fell victim. Amelia was still recovering when the armistice was signed on November, 11, but, in any case, she was scathing about the peace celebrations". Then Mary Lovell quotes the private letter from Amelia to her friend Kenneth Merrill:

" December 1918 Kenneth dear, ...I am just out of the hospital where the effects of the flu [epidemic]... put me. I think working twelve to fourteen hours at a stretch added to the strain of having carried on all summer - made me a more then normally easy prey for influenza, and an infection in my nose at the same time which later necessitated an operation after which flu symptoms reappeared. Altogether I have more then a two months siege and face the awful prospect of doing nothing for two more." - "The Sound Of Wings" by Mary S.Lovell (1989), p.27.

Amelia's biographer Doris L. Rich commented (although giving a bit different “timeframe” of when exactly the problem appeared): “…Although she continued to work through the winter of 1918-1919, during a worldwide influenza epidemic that claimed more lives then the war, by late January she was bedridden with a serious sinus infection. Without antibiotics, opening and drainage of the sinus cavities was the only treatment available. These “washings out”, as she called them, were agonizing and only partially effective leaving her a semi-invalid. In February, she left Toronto for Northampton, Massachusetts, to join Muriel who was taking preparatory courses for entrance to Smith College in the fall” - “Amelia Earhart: A Biography” by Doris L.Rich (1989) – p. 20.

AE’s biographers Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon describes the problem in details, referring to Amelia’s book “20 Hours 40 Minutes”: “The influenza epidemic of 1918 struck Toronto. This was one of history’s major disasters, claiming twenty million lives worldwide. Sister Amelia was one of the few permitted on night duty, and she served in a pneumonia ward where she “helped to ladle out medicine from buckets.” She stayed well throughout the epidemic that killed so many and then took seriously ill with what she diagnosed as “a case of too much nursing, perhaps with too long hours.” She suffered from “pain and pressure around one eye and copious drainage via the nostrils and throat.” Today a doctor would probably prescribe antibiotics, but these had not been discovered in 1918, so Amelia had to endure several minor operations and a long convalescence.” - “Amelia: a Life of the Aviation Legend” by Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon (1997) – p.26.

Also see: ”20 Hours 40 Minutes” by Amelia Earhart (1928), p.43.

Jean L.Backus, AE researcher and the author of the book “Letters from Amelia” – citing and analyzing a lot of authentic Amelia’s private letters to her friends and relatives, first of all to her mother Amy, - comments: “The Armistice of November 11, 1918, not only constituted another watershed for Amelia Earhart, it preceded one of the first of several episodes of ill health coincident with periods of great stress in her life. She was through with boarding school, restless, undecided about a career, and she was seriously ill with a severe infection. One of the volunteers permitted night duty on the pneumonia ward, she apparently had kept well during the strenuous schedules required to cope with the great influenza epidemic which followed World War I and killed twenty million people around the world. Once the emergency was over, she took to her bed. Today the illness would be diagnosed as sinusitis and dealt with handily, but in 1918 there were no antibiotics, and only irrigation of the sinus cavities was offered in the way of treatment…[…]…Her body responded to sights and sounds and smells of distress in others {her patients} with pain and pressure around one eye and copious drainage via the nostrils and throat. Despite the “washings out” as Amelia named the irrigations, the torment of chronic sinus infection persisted throughout the rest of her life, including flights of 1932 and 1935. ” - Jean L.Backus, “Letters from Amelia” (1982) – p.49-50.

Here's how Susan Butler, another AE's recognized biographer, commented the events:

"...Amelia was tough, but, but finally she too, felt ill. She was hit with a pneumococcal bacterial infection in her frontal antrum, where the pressure so builds up in the sinuses that severe, chronic pain results. Without antibiotics, the only treatment was to surgically open the cavity, drain the infections, and keep it open and draining until all traces of the infection completely disappeared. Amelia was operated upon. It was a long, debilitating course of treatment, lasting mounts, and it so seriously weakened Amelia that it took the rest of the winter for her to recover her strength. Even then it turned out that the infection had not been totally eradicated; i6t would remain a serious problem for years.

She spent her convalescence in Northampton, Massachusetts, where Amy had taken an apartment in order to be with Muriel, who was now studying at Miss Capen's School so she would do well on the College Board examinations required for entrance to Smith College. There Amelia rested." -"East To The Dawn: The Life Of Amelia Earhart" by Susan Butler (1997), p. 86.

In following years it became obvious that the problem was not really removed completely - that is understandable if to consider that it was a pre-antibiotic era. So in following years, AE was persistently plagued by assaults of the sinus inflammations and the inevitable accompanying symptoms like headache.

The years 1921-1923, spent by AE with her parents in California, were AE's first years of her activity as a pilot... But in these years, sometimes the chronic sinus problem sharpened to such a degree that AE was forced to wore - even on public - the small drainage tube covered by a bandage, for to drain the abcess still plaguing her and to cure this way the tormenting headache caused by a persisting sinus inflammation.

AE’s biographer Doris L. Rich wrote about this period: “…Another admirer was Winfield Kinner, Jr., an eleven year-old schoolboy. …[…]…He was also impressed by what seemed to him considerable stoicism on the day she removed a small bandage from her check to show his mother the tiny tube used to drain the chronic abcess of the antrum which continued to plague her.” - - “Amelia Earhart: A Biography” by Doris L.Rich (1989) – p. 32.

This persisting and painful problem (that was especially boring because of AE’s flying, as it caused an extremely uncomfortable and painful effects at the rapid changes of air pressure caused by a changes of altitude when flying in open cockpits characteristic for the era) - finally made the next surgical intrusion inevitable and necessary. Unfortunately it wasn’t successful and, soon after it, it was clear that the new surgical intrusion is inevitable and will be necessary pretty soon. So when AE and her mother left California for Boston in May 1924, for to join AE’s sister Muriel (who departed earlier before by train), AE was far from being and feeling healthy.

As Mary S. Lovell, AE's biographer, wrote: "...To add to Amelia's existing problems, - and perhaps exacerbate them - the condition (an abscess in the nasal passages that had created a deep-seated sinus infection causing a great deal of pain) that had first occurred during her time at Spadina now flared up again. An operation was advised, which she undertook somewhat nervously. The aftermath was months of further physical discomfort and the ignominy of being harried by a debt-collection agency for payment of the five-hundred-dollar medical fees. It took a year for Amelia to pay off this sum, but by then she had left California." - "The Sound Of Wings" by Mary S.Lovell (1989), p.47. About this second surgery, Doris L.Rich wrote: “…In 1924, less then nine months after she received her FAI license {May 15 1923}, Amelia Earhart was hospitalized for another sinus operation.” - “Amelia Earhart: A Biography” by Doris L.Rich (1989) – p. 32. As the biographer Susan Butler wrote about this second surgery, "...Amelia was laid low by the return of the infection in her antrum, the result of the strain of packing up all the Earhart possessions, ...[...]... An operation was called for to drain pneumococcal infection. The procedure cost five hundred dollars, which Amelia left unpaid." - "East To The Dawn: The Life Of Amelia Earhart" by Susan Butler (1997), p. 117.

The biographer Doris L.Rich wrote: “Amelia and Amy left Hollywood on a bright May day. Barely recovered from one operation and knowing another would be necessary as soon as she reached Boston, Amelia was determined to see something on the way” – “Amelia Earhart: A Biography” by Doris L.Rich (1989) – p. 40.

Thus, AE “transformed” her transcontinental trip with her mother into the Big Tour across several US (and Canadian) National Parks and other famous places and landmarks. Apparently that second surgery was so much unsuccessful that it rather sharpened the problem then cured it; so, before the across-the-country car trip of AE and her mother ended, she felt even worse. As Mary Lovell wrote: "...The pain in her head was, by the end of the journey, insupportable. Within days of her arrival in Boston, Amelia entered Massachusetts Memorial Hospital for an operation in which a small piece of bone was removed to allow drainage of the sinuses. It was completely successful and after a short convalescence, she was free of pain for the first time in four years." - "The Sound Of Wings" by Mary S.Lovell (1989), pp.48-49.

Biographers Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon wrote: “Within a week of joining Muriel, Amelia was in a hospital. The breakup of her parents’ marriage had coincided with a severe attack of her old sinus problem, an ailment that throughout her life flared up during the periods of stress. In Massachusetts General Hospital a small piece of bone was removed to permit drainage. Upon discharge she declared that for the first time in four years she was free of headache and nasal pain. ” - “Amelia: a Life of the Aviation Legend” by Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon (1997) – p.35.

As Susan Butler comments: "The last part of it [the trip] was a labor of love for Amelia, for the [recent] operation had not completely drained out the infection, and there was a pressure and pain in her sinus. Three days after their arrival in Boston, Amelia checked into Massachusetts General Hospital, where yet again doctors opened up her sinus and drained out the infection. This time her recovery was excruciatingly slow. She spent the months in Medford, a suburb of Boston where Muriel had found a teaching job and a house nearby for herself and her mother to live in." - "East To The Dawn: The Life Of Amelia Earhart" by Susan Butler (1997), p. 117.

The biographer Doris L.Rich wrote: “The seven thousand-mile trip to Boston took six weeks. Two weeks later Amelia entered Boston General Hospital for more surgery. After her release she joined Amy and Muriel in Medford, a suburb of Boston, where Muriel was teaching at Lincoln Junior High…[…]… Before Amelia could think about another plane, Amy offered her the money for a second year at Columbia University and Amelia accepted, returning there in September 1924.” -“Amelia Earhart: A Biography” by Doris L.Rich (1989) – p. 40.

As Jean Backus commented: “Within a week of their arrival, Amelia entered Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston for surgery. During the four stressful years in California, while Edwin and Amy struggled to preserve their marriage, and Amelia acted as a buffer between them, she had never been free of headache and nasal discomfort. Her flying had not helped the condition. The goggles and helmet she wore did not entirely protect her face from the effect of wind and cold in an open cockpit, and she had constantly endured probes and irrigations which never brought more then temporary relief. During her hospital stay, a small piece of bone was surgically removed to allow natural drainage from the offending antrum. For the first time in years, she was free of headache and nasal discomfort, but the difficulty would return and she would mention other attacks after periods of great stress in the future.” - Jean L.Backus, “Letters from Amelia” (1982) – p.61.

That's how AE's sister Muriel wrote about these 1924 surgeries - after 50+ years: "...Soon after Amelia and Mother arrived in Medford, Amelia was troubled by a recurring sinus infection which dated back to living in Toronto. It flared up in California the previous year, and she went through some painful and ineffective treatments. Upon the advice of our Medford doctor, she had nasal surgery. The surgeon removed a small piece of bone in her nasal passage, allowing her sinuses to drain. Surgery cured the problem completely. Amelia left the hospital after about a week's stay, entirely free from headache and nasal discomfort for the first time in four years." - "Amelia. My Courageous Sister" by Muriel Earhart Morrissey and Carol L.Osborne (1987), p.54.

However in those pre-antibiotic days apparently the problem still could not be solved definitely, once and forever. So after 11 years, in 1935 - after an extremely intensive and especially stressful and exhaustive several-months-period of professional activities of all kinds - she was bedridden with this old problem again.

As Mary Lovell wrote about this period of 1935, "...The heavy demands made on Amelia that spring took an inevitable toll, for in June she became with the old recurrent sinus problems. An operation was followed by an attack of pleurisy and she was bedridden for ten days. George, who had been in New York, flew to her side." [He] arrived yesterday, which helps," she {Amelia} wrote Amy {her Mother}." - "The Sound Of Wings" by Mary S.Lovell (1989), p. 219.

As biographers Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon wrote: “In view of the murderous schedule Amelia had been following so far in 1935, it is not surprising to find her writing to Amy {her Mother} from Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Los Angeles on June 1935. “The sinus is kicking up and I am tired of being beaten up with washings out so Dr. Goldstein is going to work on me tomorrow.”…[…]… The next day Amelia had her operation. Dr. Joseph Goldstein told the press that it was “minor and unimportant”, and the patient “would leave the hospital in a day or two”. Nevertheless it was a painful nuisance to Amelia. She left Cedars of Lebanon as soon as she was able and went to a friend’s. She wrote to her mother on July 5: “There is a backache I had which I thot was a strained muscle turned into pleurisy. I am still in bed with my side strapped. GP arrived yesterday, which helps. I am getting on now, and can get up as soon as 3 days pass in which I run no temperature. The nose is healing OK though I am warned I’ll have a headache for another week!” - “Amelia: a Life of the Aviation Legend” by Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon (1997) – p.143.

As Susan Butler commented, "...By summer she was run down, understandably. At the end of June her sinuses were kicking up so badly, she landed in Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in L.A., then got pleurisy. It threw all their [AE's and GP's - Alex] plans off schedule and meant they would not get to the Double Dee ranch that summer after all" - "East To The Dawn: The Life Of Amelia Earhart" by Susan Butler (1997), p. 339.

As Doris L.Rich wrote: “Exhausted by three long-distance flights and three lecture tours in six months Amelia was hospitalized with a severe sinus infection. On June 25, the day after her last lecture, she entered the Cedars of Lebanon hospital for surgery. She told her mother she was “tired of being beaten up with washing out” (in which a syringe was used to pump a solution into the atrium to flush out the debris of suppurating tissue which then drained from the patient’s mouth. The alternative was surgery to enlarge or correct blocked nasal passages for normal drainage). From the hospital she went to the Oceanside ranch of GP’s friends, the Louis Lightons, to recuperate. She was bedridden there with a backache she assumed was caused by a strained muscle was actually pleurisy. When GP arrived on the fourth of July she was still in bed with her ribs strapped, but her nose was healing.” – “Amelia Earhart: A Biography” by Doris L.Rich (1989) – p. 207. Also see: Jean L.Backus, “Letters from Amelia” (1982) – p.175.

Thus the different solid credible biographic sources, that refers to the original letters and other family documents and related records, certainly indicates that Amelia Earhart had a serious and persisting chronic sinus inflammation problems, that plagued her with a periodic “assaults” since 1918 – when she “collected the bug” in Toronto, during the worldwide influenza epidemia – to 30s, when the problem again demanded a surgical intrusion as late as in 1935. Although slightly differing in the referred exact dates of surgeries and such a things as exact length of the recuperation periods (that is understandable - as all the sources describes the events after 50 or mory years passed), it is certain that all the sources positively confirms that in total, the problem demanded as many as 4 surgical intrusions during the period 1918 - 1935. Best regards to all - sincerely, Alex V Mandel (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Heath problems: comments

Discussion on "Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 9", link in archive box at top of page. The text above might stay as the original text that Alex Mandel sent (and be archived commplete). I have made jottings in the archive 9. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For chronolgy, consider archiving the earlier discussions on this page as "Archive 9" and make Doc's helath treatise as "Archive 10." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

Earlier sections now archived in archive 9 and AE health in archived 10. Snowman (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Did the invasive surgery and drainage tube leave a scar? If so, which cheek? Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not say that the tube came from the cheek, but is says that the tube was under the bandage. The tube could have been under the bandage and draining the sinus via her nose. Incisions could have been in the mouth or the nose and hidden from view on photographs. I do not know if the gap her her teeth is anything to do with the operations, but I doubt if it was. Is there any information on the gap in her teeth? Snowman (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What was the diameter of the drainage tube? Abscess contents are sometimes viscous and tenacious and so the tube would have a minimum effective diameter, I guess. I doubt if it was photographed. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Other topics

"Is there any information on the gap in her teeth? " The gap was quite pronounced and is noticeable in some photographs but Amelia became adroit at smiling with her lips closed whenever a photographer was around. Check any of her formal photographs and you will note that a certain "look" was maintained (on direction from G.P. Putnam). I first spotted the discrepancy when I came across a brief film clip that was in our local aviation museum archives. The original film had been made by a doctor in Newfoundland when Amelia was preparing for her 1932 "hop." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC).

There was a gap between her two front teeth, many sources mention it, I've never heard it was from an injury or anything like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GA

How are things going for this article towards WP:GA? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The one aspect of a FA or GA submission that will seemingly never be achieved is a lengthy period of stability which is basically Wikispeak for "no changes" or "challenges" to the basic text. I have been informed that due to its popularity with trolls, socks and other unwashed, stability is unlikely to ever occur. Sigh... Bzuk (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

Aside from the obvious instability and a few relatively minor changes I think that this article is close to achieving at least GA status. I recommend we restrict the article to established users, that should reduce or eliminate the trolls and vandalism so that this article can be promoted.--Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Vandalism and other everyday disruption shouldn't keep an article like this from GA. I think the time is near. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

well this is porint less

i have to tell all htat this is point lesser than anything i have ever seen in my life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.124.4 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Saint John, New Brunswick

Saint John, New Brunswick states that she took off from there for her 1932 trans-Atlantic flight. That assertion is not backed up in this article. Can anyone provide assistance? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At the time, this would have been considered a staging or ferry flight and not really part of the record attempt. As well, the aircraft was being piloted by famed Norwegian American aviator Bernt Balchen who helped prepare her aircraft. He also played the role of "decoy" for the press as he was ostensibly preparing Earhart's Vega for his own Arctic flight. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, I'll delete it. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart and the NAA

The article states that she was an official in the NAA. She was a vice president but resigned in May 1933. The source is here. 216.64.98.16 (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Death Dates!?!?!?

I have a quick question for the person that wrote this artical or anyone that can answer.

Why is it that on her tomb stone it stats that she died July 2 1937, yet it the artical claims that the last recorded radio transmition from Amelia was July 6 1937 ??

Can someone please rectify or explain the discrepency??

Tysh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.222.129 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is alleged that radio transmission were made after July 2, but not affirmed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC).

Flu and antibiotics

The passage about Earhart's bout of flu says something about the "pre-antibiotic era"...but antibiotics are for bacterial infections, and the flu is viral. Is the intent of the passage to refer to treatment of bacteria-caused complications of flu? If so, the text should be clearer. If not, the passage should be deleted for being false. Tmangray (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you Tmangray, your notice is correct; the paragraph became confusing, actually, because of somebody added the statement about AE having a flu - that is actually not supported by biographies. What the bio books and family memories confirms are the pneumonia and sinusit. So i just removed a "flu" now. Alex V Mandel (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New theory on the last flight

Just to preserve the statement that was recently posted and deleted, here is the text (as is with spellos and typos still in place): "A first quantitative theory using the theory and practice of the of the era science of navigation appeared in 2008 [published EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NAVIGATION , Volume 6 ,no.2,July 2008] and states that navigator Noonan when establishing the aircraft's position in the evening of July 2nd,1937, in East longitudes, operated the bubble sextant at sunset. At next morning's sunrise in West longitudes however, the marine sextant was used to fix a last position before heading for the Island of Howland. As a result of different sextant reference lines a local hour angle error was incurred, so as to influence all further dead reckoning navigation with a 3m50s virtual time flaw, i.e. the error was not visible on the watch face. When Noonan estimated to be 150 miles off the island, he thereof actually was 160 miles out. At the instant that land was estimated directly below the aircraft progression line, the Howland's true coordinates were 16 miles, 26 km, on the port bow, 1.5 times the for this island maximum visual range in clear air. The navigation model used for the theory additionally brings to light that the in literature long existing conception about the aircraft's speed [200 mph] between 1745 and 1815 GMT is erroneous as in the article demonstrated by quantitative outcomes. The from the theory computed landing zone of aircraft, after running out of fuel supplies, would be 85 miles off Howland's true position on a 157-337 compass points position line at coordinates 126 miles north of the equator and 186 miles east of the Greenwich lower meridian."

I believe that this theory juxtaposes with the prevalent "crash-and-sink" theories but needs some refinement especially in attribution. FWiW, there seems to be a legitimate source provided, and now there has to be some rewriting before it being re-submitted. Bzuk (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC).

Desertfax answers :

A new text on the subject is the following : [note: the article in EJN contains no conclusions other than based on quantitative [numerical] research]

A new, quantitative theory ['Where to Search for the Earhart Lockheed Electra ?'] using the theory and practice of the of the era science of navigation has been recently published in the [professional] European Journal of Navigation [Vol.6 no.2, July 2008,Reed , The Netherlands] and leads to the conclusion that Navigator Noonan has established his position on the setting sun in the evening of July 2, 1937, when flying the Lae to the Nukumanu Islands via Gagan on Buka loxodromic curve in east longitudes. He operated the bubble sextant together with precomputations from H.O.Pub.no.208 Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators, which he took with him on all journeys since first edited [1928]. When in the morning of July 2, 1937, in west longitudes, he again established a fix [at sunrise] before commencing the final approach to Howland, Pacific, the probable use of the mariners sextant introduced a virtual time error, not of the chronometers and watch, but of sun's local hour angle configuration. The error's origin was the difference of reference lines : the bubble sextant observes the artificial horizon on the centre of the true sun whereas the mariner's instrument registers the optic horizon on the upper limb of the visible sun. Due the exchange of instruments a deviation of 10 [statute] miles from the [pre-] computed longitude was incurred, the decline being westwards since for July 2 the mean sun [watch time] is fast on the true sun. As a result the turn off point to shift course in the final direction of the island fell 3m50s too early : when the crew expected Howland dead ahead below the APL [Aircraft Progression Line], its true position was 16 miles on the port bow. The aircraft thence, did not enter the optical visual range circle, although the crew did not completely get lost. However, the landfall was missed, especially by additional crippled radio communications and non compliant RDF [Radio Direction Finding] equipments on board of the aircraft and below on the guard ship and the island. At about 20h17m GMT Earhart signaled that they were flying [16 mls westwards ] up and down "the" Howland [advanced sunrise] position line. The message was interrupted : the follow up was not received and it must be accepted that the engines' carburettors gave first sign of running dry, forcing Amelia to immediately prepare for landing on the high seas. The navigation model used for the inquiry as combined with the remaining records of radio messages delivers a computed landing zone at 126 miles north of the equator and 186 miles east of the Greenwich lower meridian, close to 177 degrees 19 minutes west longitude ; 01 degree 59 minutes north latitude , 85 miles north-northwestwards of the true position of Howland.

note 1. I do not quite understand why the contribution has been earlier refused whereas a variety of ghost histories appear in the Amelia Earhart main Wiki article. It has, e.g., in 1996 already been shown [article, Netherlands Air Force Museum, Soesterberg]that the aircraft could by no way either reach Gardner Island [Nikumaroro],or Saipan and any other land point than Howland./Desertfax 84.80.66.78 (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

are her books public domain?

I would like to put one of her books on wikisource, but are they free of right? She probably died in 1937, but nobody knows for sure. If she died in 1937, with the "70 years rules", her books are now free of right. Must I wait 2 years, using the 1939 date where she was legally declared dead? Nobody can be sure she didn't live in a japanese prison even after 1939. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Plse do not, the Wiki article is in itself a book already. And what book would you take ? , the number of Earhart books has the tendency to surpass the bibliography on Napoleon and there are many bad ones among the stock. Books of her own , by the way, are fairly uninteresting from an intellectual point of view.84.80.66.78 (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC) desertfax

Worth adding?

Is this radio link of any use? [5] I'm not familiar enough with the article to put anything in myself. GeneralBelly (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Extremely doubtful that this was technically possible, although there is an oblique mention of this within the "theories" section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Of no use, it simply did not happen. desertfax Desertfax (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart, "In Search Of..."

Watching the Amelia Earhart episode of In Search of..., and well, here's some transcript from it: "Questions about Amelia Earhart persist. Yet retired Airforce Major Joseph Gervais has devoted nearly 20 years of research to what he believes is the answer. "The last flight was really a military flight. Two civilian people flying a civilian aircraft, on a mission for the then-president Franklin Roosevelt. The purpose of the flight was to overfly the Truck Atoll in the Pacific where the Japanese where secretly fortifying, to take pictures of it, and to return back to the United States with photographic evidence to present to the League of Nations that Japan was in violation of the Treaty. The Japanese with an aircraft carrier stationed between Canton Island and Hull, and with Japanese Zero intercepted Earhart, and shot her down, and she made a crash-landing on the island of Hull." --98.232.182.66 (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Disreguard... sounds like Joseph Gervais was likely a quack. :| I say Irene Craigmile Bolam ought to be linked in the "see also" field, due to the press the whole thing received. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the previous comment, it is probably worth to add that the "Japanese Zeros" actually just didn't exist yet in 1937... The first test flight of Zero took place in April 1, 1939. Alex V Mandel (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC).

Categories

Some of the categories in this article could be contradictory. I think "Year of death unknown" and "Disappeared people" are mutually exclusive. Deaths in international waters may be only one view. If we consider that the only views worth taking seriously are that she crashed and sank, or crashed on an uninhabited island where she died shortly afterwards, then many of these categories can be replaced by "1937 deaths" and "Cause of death disputed". PatGallacher (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the best alternative for the time being is to leave the categories as is since there is sufficient doubt as to the exact cause of death or even location and date. We can only assume her demise in 1937 in the Pacific although I agree that is probably the most likely end of this iconic figure. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Cause of death : accident at sea vicinity of Howland,Pacific , date : July 2 , 1937 , about 2017 GMT. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC) desertfax

There is no meaningful support for anything in the assertion: accident at sea vicinity of Howland,Pacific , date : July 2 , 1937. The most the documentation and sources support would be that she likely died somewhere in the central/western Pacific ocean, most likely sometime in 1937. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)