Talk:Irene Craigmile Bolam

message: It seems like a simple thing to me:  Why didn't she just allow her finger prints to be taken in front of the judge?  If she were not Earhart, she would have gotten huge money.  Hmmmmm. ProfessorPaul 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people have a thing about privacy. Gwen Gale 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts with four tildes and don't indent, it invokes other wiki-specific formatting code, with results you surely did not intend, thanks. Gwen Gale 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. WP:UNDUE has sway here. I'm aware of not even one halfway reliable source which lends any acknowledgement that Gervais and Klass' published notions about Bolam were meaningful in any way. McGraw-Hill quickly withdrew the book when they came to understand it could (and likely would) be taken as straightforward libel. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I wonder

message: The anon added the following text to the article, which I have moved here. While I do agree with the pith of it, the Bolam tale has been thoroughly debunked many times. If someone wants to verify, condense and include some of this stuff into the article, cool. I'm too bored. Gwen Gale 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Material added to bottom of article moved here

message: The info's helpful enough but needs to be condensed and integrated into a few pithy paragraphs about this person, whose only encyclopedic notability involves her victimization in a botched attempt to make money from gullible, casual mass market readers who might believe some loopy pop-culture fantasy she was Amelia Earhart. Gwen Gale 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwen, thanks for your kind reply; my own opinion about this theory coincides with yours for 100% :) . If about "condensing and integrating" the info on the Page, i will appreciate if you will try to do it "in your way"; i just really think that you, with your apparent experience of writing for this Encyclopedia, can do it better. I provided the info; and, if you will need any additional stuff, can provide more - please just contact me anytime if you will need anything... yesterday i wrote what else i have... Kind Regards! - very sincerely, Alex V Mandel 14:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Alex! When I have time, I will do this. Cheers. Gwen Gale 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Condense and integrate

message: Wikipedia has an excellent category on Pseudohistory that seems appropriate to me for this article; Joe Klaas had claimed that Bolam was Amelia Earhart--this was not the case--so it should be considered "Pseudohistory" (a false or unproven claim about a historical person or event).  Perhaps we should create a new Wiki-Category:  "Victims of Pseudohistory."  Bolam seems (in my POV) to be a victim of a pseudohistory researcher.  Comments on this are welcome.  ProfessorPaul 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems ok by me. Don't know about a "victims of pseudohistory" cat, the term victim is widely abused, is loaded and PoV (although Ms Bolam was most definitely a victim here and the publisher paid her compensation for it). Gwen Gale 05:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I either misunderstood what this editor was on about or simply didn't have my brain plugged in at the time. Meanwhile StormRider helpfully removed the category tag. Gwen Gale 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further reflection, the term Pseudohistory typically does not refer to a person, but to a work (like a book or an article) that is related to history, but simply false.  I can now see that the Category "Pseudohistory" is not appropriate for her.  I did insert a parenthetical mention of his book as pseudohistory.  ProfessorPaul 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing happened to me at first, so to speak. Bolam is not pseudohistory, she was the subject of pseudohistory. Categorizing an article on Joe Klaas in pseudohistory would be ok. Gwen Gale 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The only recommendation is that that any claim for being false history be supported by a reputable expert's statement of it being false.  Categories are too easily created and they often create more problems than clarity.  I would certainly not support the above category of Victims of Pseudohistory.  Cheers.  --Storm Rider (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Victims of Ph... yep, think of the abuse and muddle such a list would gather. Erm, come to think of it I'm not even sure I like the term pseudohistory with that definition. Seems to me we already have the words "fiction," "scam," and "fantasy." Gwen Gale 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me state that I very much enjoy Wikipedia for this reason:  we can all have a very calm and rational discussion about issues we find important.  I also wanted to state that I have no plans at all to create a new Wiki Category "Victims of Pseudohistory."  Finally--I appreciate the two of you very much (Gwen and Storm Rider) for your contributions on this talk page and to the article.  "Cheers!"  ProfessorPaul 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolam as a case of [[Pseudohistory]]

message: After reading the AP article (from "Atchison Globe online"), i found that it includes some factually incorrect statements, that provides potential misinforming effects - "crediting" the fantastic anti-factual theory with undue weight. The statement about Mr. Tod Swindell's photographic overlays with "pilot’s face and hands, matching perfectly with those of Bolam" is of unclear origin. In a very best case it quotes and represents the personal opinion of Mr. Swindell himself and a few overenthusiastic believers in his theory. The differences between Earhart and Bolam  - both in bodial and facial aspects - are numerous and quite obvious, some of them striking; and it was always noted by numerous observers and researchers, both during the presentations of the theory and in all other cases when and where some discussion about this topic ever happened. The important and principal fact is that there was no any positive forensic confirmation for the theory ever provided to the public and scientific coomunity for any professional check and proper verification.
Moreover, two "forensic pathologists" mentioned in the article - Dr. Walter Birkby (Arizona) and Dr. Todd Fenton (Michigan) - actually issued a negative verdict about the credibility of the theory, refusing to support it; and in May 2005 Mr.Swindell's collaborator Colonel Rollin Reineck - the author of the book supporting this theory published in 2002 - informed about this the "community" of Earhart researchers (although not without understandable regrets). Then, as the article mentions, in 2006 Criminal forensic expert Kevin Richland was hired by National Geographic to study photographs of Earhart and Bolam and cited many measurable facial differences between them.
It seems for me that all the abovementioned leaves the referred article without the degree of seriousness, factual accuracy and credibility required for the "source" referred in  encyclopedic article. Not intended to insist on anything.. but, because of presented reasons, for me it would seem more reasonable to remove this link...  Kind Regards - Alex V Mandel 13:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, I agree with you on all points but one, the AP article was not being used as source material, but merely to provide the citation for a quote. You will note that it is listed as a footnote and only for the quote, and is not given as a reference (Wikipedia does not have a real section for notes and therefore citations are squeezed into the references section). However, your point is well taken and I will either provide a "note" to the note or if you can find a suitable quote, eliminate or replace the quote. IMHO Bzuk 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Alex, I used the wording that you suggested to make a strong statement about the many inaccuracies in a definitely "sensationalist" media report. (As an aside, I am a member of the so-called fourth estate and I know full well what I have done to stories to "spice" them up and what others have done when interviewing me.) I hope that the lengthy explanation does not take away from the one genuine quote that to me described the interesting life that Irene Bolam had lived especially in the 1940s and that was a matter of note in the family. Kind regards back at 'ya. Bzuk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest changes/corrections

message: Another editor removed the link to an article "Amelia Earhart's Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?" claiming that it violates the WP:EL rules. IMHO this claim needs some clarification. The mentioned article is right on topic and it is legally present in the Wikipedia system for years already as a free informational release legally published in at least two independent sources (books) and it's status is properly announced and confirmed. Until there will be some consensus between several editors about this situation I restored the link for a while. Alex V Mandel (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Links section

message: The new addition to the text of the article claims that "In January 2016, Amelia Earhart: Beyond the Grave by W. C. Jameson was published, setting forth new evidence to show that Bolam and Earhart were one and the same." -with the link to the Fox News article about the book. But in this Fox article there are no new evidence, and in fact even no claims about any "new evidence to show that Bolam and Earhart were one and the same." The Fox article just introduces the main idea of the theory for unprepared reader in a pretty general way. The Fox article also claim that "Jameson claims to have found evidence showing Earhart's plane was equipped with cameras to record Japanese military installations in the Pacific Ocean when it lost contact in the Marshall Islands."  But this is a different claim, not equal to the statement that "new evidence [was found] that Bolam and Earhart were one and the same." And, just as the theory itself, this is not a new claim, too. It was proposed already by several Earhart researchers in different times (although was never confirmed) - including also the ones who doesn't believe the Irene Bolam theory.
This is why I found it reasonable to re-phrase slightly this recent addition in the Wikipedia article. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New book

message: The website is:  https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120724-amelia-earhart-google-doodle-fred-noonan-115th-nation-science/   
Under theory 3 they cite Irene Bolam.2600:8805:A181:DD0:B435:BC99:212B:A7F9 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  If National Geographic Society disproved this theory in 2006 then why does the website show this as a theory without a smoking gun?