Talk:Neta Snook Southern

message: A.Mandel:  What you keep losing sight of in your quest to smooth things over is that AE was truly a worse than mediocre pilot.  In your words, "Generally i respectfully but definitely disagree with a definitions of Earhart as "mediocre", "average at best" etc. pilot. It is based on few selected claims . . ."  For some reason, you are following a popular POV that doesn't match with reality. Amelia Earhart crashed expensive airplanes, and finally got permanently lost and died.  She contributed to the death of another person. She has never been found.  In aviation, that surely qualifies as the worst of aviators (although some here may cut her some slack since she was an "attractive young woman"). Any article about her flight training ought properly focus on the reasons for her inadequate skill set. BomberJoe (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Mandel has clearly identified a number of contemporary sources that describe Earhart's flying abilities in an extensive note archived in the Amelia Earhart talk pages but this is not the forum to debate various merits of Amelia Earhart. The article on Neta Snook is a biographical article and information presented depicts her involvement with aviation as well as providing a background on her significant pioneering efforts in this field. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. It is especially inconclusive when the arguments forwarded are complete supposition not based on any recognized or authoritative source.  FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediocre doesn't mean "bad" or incompetent and Earhart is not remembered for her piloting skill. However as Bzuk helpfully says, this isn't the place to talk about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Bomber Joe, with all my respect i can't agree with your comment on Earhart. The reasons: 1) Since the actual exact technical reason of her loss is not known at all it is not reasonable to blame her in the fatal outcome of the flight; 2) The statement about her crashing "expensive aircraft" here and there is just a popular myth: in reality she crashed a pretty few ones, actually a less number then a majority of other pilots of her era and her status in aviation community did; and 3) My statement was not a "POV" but was based on a solid and numerous historic quotations of contemporary top-class pilots who knew Earhart well, for years, and flew with her not once. Very obviously they didn't confirm the claims about Earhart as "inadequate", "mediocre" or "worse then mediocre" etc. etc. etc. pilot. As Bzuk and Gwen Gale fairly noted this topic was already discussed in details on the "Talk Page" of Earhart article and not once already. I would even say it was not simply "discussed"; actually it was just beaten to death there. So, with all my respect, i would recommend rather to study all that material before attacking the comments of other editors with strong and predjudicial remarks on the Talk Page of "Anita Snook" article (which is really about Snook - not Earhart).Alex V Mandel (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to agree to disagree.  This article is about Snook, part of which is Snook's frustrations with trying to create safe pilots where there are none.  Some editors are leaning in the direction of whitewashing some of the training issues, and doing just that is contrary to traditional aviation training practices.  The fact that some editors beat an argument to death doesn't mean that the issue has gone away.  As long as there's aviation instructors reading this material, the issue still has legs, regardless of whether you think you've heard enough about it. I know it's a delicate subject, but the successful pilots are those who have never crashed a plane, and never become lost. Snook's job was to train such pilots.  This article is still a delicate whitewash of one flight instructor's important mission and is totally unsatisfactory for just that reason. BomberJoe (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of "successful pilot" was different 75 years ago, as were the available aircraft and instrumentation. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting this stuff? "This article is about Snook, part of which is Snook's frustrations with trying to create safe pilots where there are none." Some editors are "whitewashing?" and your opinion is that the article is "totally unsatisfactory." Your characterization of the editors who have contributed to this article and to the talk page discourse rather than engaging in reasoned discourse is duly noted. Bzuk (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Totally agree with last comments of Gwen Gale and Bzuk. Just btw, the great Colonel Lindbergh lost at least 4 planes in the air and was forced to use a parachute - joining this way so-called "Caterpillar Club"... and hope nobody will use this to argue that Colonel Lindbergh was as if "incompetent", "unskilled" or "worse then mediocre" pilot. Those days in aviation were really different, and the planes, equipment and standards of safety and "appropriate level of risks" were totally different too. And it must be remembered and considered properly when trying to argue about the "quality" of the pilots of that era. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Mediocre Pilot

message: Just one more comment on the previous discussion - as far as Amelia Earhart was mentioned in it. During the dispute she was described as the "agnostic"... but this description, IMHO, may be quite misleading. As the Wikipedia article states, "Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people,[1] although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion". This is exactly what may be misleading in the case of Earhart. Certainly it can be said that she was not overly religious and actively practicizing some religious cult; simultaneously, however, she certainly can't be called "atheist": the available historic data consfirms that she wasn't. Particularly, in her youth years she was a member of the Altar Guild of the St. Clement's Episcopal Church in St.Paul and belonged to the group of  activists who helped to keep the Church in proper order. Also she was a member of the Junior Auxiliary there, and her friend Marian Blodgett remembered  that AE was specially enthusiastic about this last kind of church activity and loved to sing in the church choir. During her studying in Ogontz (1917) she was a secretary and treasurer of Cristian Endeavour. Later during her life - particularly when filling any kind of formal papers, etc. - she always identified herself as "Protestant" {Episcopalian Church}. As she wrote in one of her private letters, "don't think for an instant I would ever become and atheist or even a doubter nor lose faith in the church's teaching as a whole. That is impossible."  
These facts, presented in Earhart's biographies, suggests to think that although she apparently  was not really "avidly" religious  - and certainly didn't like to discuss her religious views publicly when being famous - still, to describe her as "agnostic" seems a stretch, and potentially misleading one (considering the possible multiple interpretations of the word "agnostic"). Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc, I agree that researchers, most notably Susan Butler, have attempted to reconcile Earhart's diverse interests and have tended to address her religiosity in a oblique fashion by indicating her tendency to absorb ideas and beliefs as a student. Butler is the only Earhart biographer to describe her as an "inquiring agnostic." Although she was not overtly religious, like many of her generation, Earhart's religious beliefs were set from an early age. To extrapolate a minor incident in reading a book on Islamic history that Earhart has referred to as discussing the Koran places a great deal more emphasis on the event than is warranted. Due to the fascination with the Earhart mystique, the discovery of a letter in which the Koran is mentioned has given rise to a misunderstanding of Earhart's background. Snook also did not press her beliefs on others and while both women were friends, it was the bond of aviation that brought them together and cemented the relationship. Only after Earhart wished to involve her friend in  her many other interests, was it clear that both individuals did not share a passion for wide-ranging inquiry and research that the two inevitably drifted apart. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, once again, we are trying to modify reality and subvert definitions.  Agnostic is a scientific term when used in this manner.  An agnostic is unable to prove the existence of something.  Thus, it is a common religious dilemma. Thomas Huxley first coined the term for scientific purposes. Charles Darwin is a good applied example, since he wrote extensively about his religious agnosticism.  There is nothing inconsistent about being a religious agnostic; it is not at all close to being an atheist. BomberJoe (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: All this is, in fact, correct. However, as Wikipedia says (please see the full quote above), "...Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people". So here we are actually having a sort of "conflict" between the exact scientific definition and meaning of the word and the popular or even "prevailing" public interpretation of it. That's why i thought that the use of the word "agnostic" possibly may be misleading. Regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  P.S. - on Earhart and agnosticism

message: There are a number of Kinner Airster (or Kinner Sportster) aircraft models.  Which one is featured on this page?  Also, I think that the photo with NS and AE on this page is not the best version, because I have seen a better resolution on on the internet.  I have not downloaded it as I am not sure of the copyright.  Snowman (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the best picture but the copyright is sorted out. I believe the aircraft in the photograph is the Kinner Airster (1923) built by Kinner as his first design. Later versions had some modifications and by the 1930s were known as the Security Airster S-1. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption indicates that one was photographed in 1921. Was it a prototype? Is one of these on the wiki? Can you find the improved resolution photo? Snowman (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the first Airster and "one-off" that Neta considered underpowered and not fully developed. I don't have another photo of the Airster. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo on the article page is a cropped version, and little of the aircraft wings can be seen. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinner Sportster 

message: This article is written in a really "friendly" tone. Maybe some attention should be directed towards the overall style of this article. DasПиg talk   —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadful tone