Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 2

More Bolam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

Survey

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

Survey - Support votes

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

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

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

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

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

Attached article

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

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

Survey - Oppose votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Jackie

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

Gossip

I've removed the following for discussion here:

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

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

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

I must concur. The time I met Mr. Mantz, I was far more interested in talking him into letting me get into the storage area at his museum to photograph the XP-85 to bother asking him did he have an affair with Earheart. In fact, I can't imagine I would have. The encyclopedia entry about Amelia Earheart must be about the person who mattered during her life and afterwards. That is the pertinent information. That person was one involved in popularizing aviation and that is the person the electrons must be expended upon.Mark Lincoln 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncited "armchair" psychoanalysis

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

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

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

Myths, urban legends and unsupported claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims

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

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

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

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

I have had a copy of Goerner's book since it was new. Fun read.

The proposed spy mission was simply not possible, the L-10E could not have performed it.

Nor could the airplane have flown to Howland and then back to the Marshalls.

I like a nice fat reserve on over water flights, and I am certain Earhart would have too. But a reserve in excess of 50% is absurd.

The airplane took off with almost no reserve (still air) and had headwinds all the way.

Load the L-10E with enough fuel to do a spy mission or divert from Howland to the Marshalls and we would know where she died.

In the fire at the end of the runway.Mark Lincoln 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Neta Snook

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

The early Kinner engines were notorious for literally losing cylinders. The bolts holding it down would strip and the cylinder would come lose. The physics of a radial engine make it virtually impossible to start one with an even number of cylinders and they run rough with one missing. With only two out of three Snook and Earhart would have had an interesting takeoff. Aviation was not like today, or even 50 years ago. EVERYONE had incidents and "any landing you can walk away from is a good one" was more than a joke.75.24.216.195 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to explain the "Golden Age" of aviation? I was not alive, but I am old enough to have met and spoke with some of the participants. One could honestly ask was Amelia Earhart a shameless self-promoter. Of course. How else could she afford to fly? Was GP a shameless self-promoter? Yup. Did they have something beyond that? Seems so. Did she actually accomplish some important flights (in an age when publicity stunts were very important to keeping aviation in the public mind)? Yup. So, if the lead paragraph has a taste of the kind of promotion that MADE Amelia Earhart worth naming luggage for, is that necessarily wrong?Mark Lincoln 22:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A minor factual point

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

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

Who was GP?

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

Article length, content and intent

Length

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

Content

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

Intent

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

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

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

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

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

So, general discussion about the header

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply

In rereading the introductory paragraphs, (following)

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

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

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

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

Further to the above

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

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

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

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

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

Header

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I note in Gwen's comments a certain lack of knowledge of the context of both Mantz and Earheart in aviation history. Things were changing fast. They were in very many ways of two different generations. Not so much in age as technology and approach. When I see something like "Mantz isn't all that respected as a pilot or consultant, other than by a hand full of stunt people." I suspect Gwen has little in depth exposure to the people or history of US Aviation in the period between 1930 and 1960. The culture was different, the technology different. Mantz was also a race pilot - and a successful one. Hard for folks to imagine when Astronauts are forbidden to race their own airplanes that just after WW II the man who flew the first flights of the X-1 and presumably would have flown the first supersonic flight was killed practicing in his own racing plane for the National Air Races, or that his partner who flew an almost identical one to victory in the 1946 Thompson Trophy race. That pilot was a test pilot as well. A decade later he barrel rolled the 707 prototype while demonstrating it over a boat race on Lake Washington, his name - now forgotten - was "Tex" Johnson (he continued to be a Boeing test pilot and employee until he retired in 1968). While an encyclopedia article cannot go in depth about much, it would be wrong to assume that simply because a 'stunt' pilot named Don Dwiggins wrote a biography about another 'stunt pilot' named Mantz and much of what WAS aviation in their youth has become irrelevant to aviation today, that there was nothing important about either. Had she not disappeared mysteriously, Amelia Earhart would be just another one of those 'irrelevant' stunt pilots today.75.24.216.195 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess Gwen, what I am saying is that Mantz IS a reliable source for information about Amelia Earhart, her relationship with the L-10, her strengths and weaknesses concerning the flight and the planning of that flight. He was competent, capable, up to his ears in it and his opinion cannot be discarded simply because you might not like it.75.24.216.195 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Marriage (suggestion)

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

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

Ok, so Earharts own words is not a valid citation. Perhaps she was not telling him what she seemed to be telling him. Could be.Mark Lincoln 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)17:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign my comment.

Further to the Earhart prenuptial agreement

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

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

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