Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 3

Vandalism2

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

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

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

Proposing some flying/health topics updates

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

Semi-protection

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

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

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

Pioneering achievements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been difficult to saw through so let me ask if I have it right Gwen. The opinions of qualified pilots who did similar things under similar circumstances are not valid sources for information about Earhart's flying abilities or tendencies while flying a specific aircraft which the contemporary had flown with her, but a historian many decades in the futures opinion is. Am I wrong?Mark Lincoln 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DOD

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

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

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

The ongoing debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maury 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maury 13:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While everyone is still here...

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism again?...

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

Current Event?

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

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

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

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

In the arts section

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

Purdue

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

On the "Purdue" Wikipage it says this:

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

On the Wikipage "Amelia Earhart" it says this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otis66Driftwood 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks so much for your helpful input :) I did fix the text in the Purdue article following your question. Cheers! Gwen Gale 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

YOU ARE EVER SO WELCOME.

I SO MUCH THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOU EXCELLENT WORK.

IF YOU WROTE A NOVEL I'D BUY IT FOR EVERYONE ON MY CHRISTMAS LIST.

IM GOING TO GO RIGHT NOW AND FILL MYSELF FULL OF THE KNOWLEDGE YOU SO GRACIOUSLY SHARED WITH THE REST OF US.

I HOPE YOU TO HAVE MANY YEARS OF WRITING AHEAD OF YOU SO YOU CAN HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE WORLD SUCH AS THE IMPACT YOUVE HAD ON ME.

WITH MOST DEAREST AND KINDEST REGARDS...

"FOUR TILDES"