Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 2

message: Amelia Earhart myths Due to the overly speculative nature of postings in this section which I believe takes away from an accurate and scholarly article, I propose to create a new page that will allow proponents to post and discuss the various conspiracy theories that abound surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. Gwen Gale and others, please respond with your votes and comments. There already is a "TinWiki" offshoot of Wikepedia that deals with these sorts of conjecture.Bzuk 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
Support Weak support Gwen Gale 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the current factoring and cleanup of this section in the main article I'm also ok with it there.
Weak support. Material that fails WP:VERIFY (e.g. the entire 'paranormal' section as it stands) should simply be deleted; we should not be creating a separate article with looser standards of verifiability in the hope of distracting the tinfoil hats from this one. But given that the 'captured by the Japanese' theory currently gets three times as much space as the majority theory, WP:Undue weight is relevant here, so it does seem reasonable to split off some of that. It would also be good to expand the majority-viewpoint section a bit, since it's actually rather low on cites compared to the conspiracy theories (which is part of the reason for the imbalance). --Calair 06:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: In other words, you are "adamantly opposed" to moving wholly unsupported claims from the text? Gwen Gale 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't the question.  If "conspiracy" claims are referenced, they should be included.  Whether they're correct or not is another question. Hayford Peirce 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We disagree but it's not a big thing. Gwen Gale 08:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Undue weight to codswallop, for starters. Gwen Gale 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is, the editor who proposed it thought splitting off the unsupported material into a separate article would be a way to "edit the article to be better." Gwen Gale 08:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. My take is it wouldn't be a good way. --Guinnog 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loading up an article with the ravings of people hoping to make a bit of money off wholly spurious and unsupported claims about famous dead people is so helpful, after all. Gwen Gale 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look to me like there's "overload of codswollop" (what is that, anyhow?). Personally, I'd rather have a complete single article than a lot of outlinks.  Trekphiler 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only referring to the myths section, which we're discussing in this thread. As for codswallop, may I humbly suggest a dictionary? Gwen Gale 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That, in my humble view, is the only reason for keeping them in the main article. I can only say I think their absence, along with a link to a "myths" article, would send the message even more starkly but I do understand why some editors might feel it would be easier for readers to keep everything in the main article. Gwen Gale 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the myths section is supportable or citeable as to fact, but only as to its dodgy pop-culture existence as unsupported myth/urban legend/spurious conjecture and fodder for down-market print and telly tabloids. Gwen Gale 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
Support Weak support Gwen Gale 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the current factoring and cleanup of this section in the main article I'm also ok with it there.
Weak support. Material that fails WP:VERIFY (e.g. the entire 'paranormal' section as it stands) should simply be deleted; we should not be creating a separate article with looser standards of verifiability in the hope of distracting the tinfoil hats from this one. But given that the 'captured by the Japanese' theory currently gets three times as much space as the majority theory, WP:Undue weight is relevant here, so it does seem reasonable to split off some of that. It would also be good to expand the majority-viewpoint section a bit, since it's actually rather low on cites compared to the conspiracy theories (which is part of the reason for the imbalance). --Calair 06:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'll do it now (shorten the codswallop section, that is). As for the majority views section, I'm not sure expansion is needed there (the evidence is rather stark, they either ditched on the open sea or made it to Gardner following the LOP where Noonan didn't last long and Earhart may have later died a miserable death with only crabs the size of hedgehogs for company), though I do support elimination of the loony stuff altogether (or its exile to a separate article). Gwen Gale 08:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, you are "adamantly opposed" to moving wholly unsupported claims from the text? Gwen Gale 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't the question.  If "conspiracy" claims are referenced, they should be included.  Whether they're correct or not is another question. Hayford Peirce 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We disagree but it's not a big thing. Gwen Gale 08:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Undue weight to codswallop, for starters. Gwen Gale 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is, the editor who proposed it thought splitting off the unsupported material into a separate article would be a way to "edit the article to be better." Gwen Gale 08:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. My take is it wouldn't be a good way. --Guinnog 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loading up an article with the ravings of people hoping to make a bit of money off wholly spurious and unsupported claims about famous dead people is so helpful, after all. Gwen Gale 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look to me like there's "overload of codswollop" (what is that, anyhow?). Personally, I'd rather have a complete single article than a lot of outlinks.  Trekphiler 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only referring to the myths section, which we're discussing in this thread. As for codswallop, may I humbly suggest a dictionary? Gwen Gale 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Support Weak support Gwen Gale 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the current factoring and cleanup of this section in the main article I'm also ok with it there.
Weak support. Material that fails WP:VERIFY (e.g. the entire 'paranormal' section as it stands) should simply be deleted; we should not be creating a separate article with looser standards of verifiability in the hope of distracting the tinfoil hats from this one. But given that the 'captured by the Japanese' theory currently gets three times as much space as the majority theory, WP:Undue weight is relevant here, so it does seem reasonable to split off some of that. It would also be good to expand the majority-viewpoint section a bit, since it's actually rather low on cites compared to the conspiracy theories (which is part of the reason for the imbalance). --Calair 06:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'll do it now (shorten the codswallop section, that is). As for the majority views section, I'm not sure expansion is needed there (the evidence is rather stark, they either ditched on the open sea or made it to Gardner following the LOP where Noonan didn't last long and Earhart may have later died a miserable death with only crabs the size of hedgehogs for company), though I do support elimination of the loony stuff altogether (or its exile to a separate article). Gwen Gale 08:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: Oppose I can't imagine why you would want to break up this article.  There are about 3000 words about her life and about 500 about so-called "conspiracy" theories.  It's not as if the latter were overwhelming the integrity of the article.  I'm adamantly opposed to creating a separate article. Hayford Peirce 04:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you are "adamantly opposed" to moving wholly unsupported claims from the text? Gwen Gale 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't the question.  If "conspiracy" claims are referenced, they should be included.  Whether they're correct or not is another question. Hayford Peirce 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We disagree but it's not a big thing. Gwen Gale 08:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Undue weight to codswallop, for starters. Gwen Gale 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is, the editor who proposed it thought splitting off the unsupported material into a separate article would be a way to "edit the article to be better." Gwen Gale 08:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. My take is it wouldn't be a good way. --Guinnog 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loading up an article with the ravings of people hoping to make a bit of money off wholly spurious and unsupported claims about famous dead people is so helpful, after all. Gwen Gale 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look to me like there's "overload of codswollop" (what is that, anyhow?). Personally, I'd rather have a complete single article than a lot of outlinks.  Trekphiler 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only referring to the myths section, which we're discussing in this thread. As for codswallop, may I humbly suggest a dictionary? Gwen Gale 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This would be very helpful and comply with WP policy concerning undue weight. Gwen Gale 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the myths section is supportable or citeable as to fact, but only as to its dodgy pop-culture existence as unsupported myth/urban legend/spurious conjecture and fodder for down-market print and telly tabloids. Gwen Gale 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

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

message: I've removed the following for discussion here:
According to Earhart's biographer Susan Butler the "love of her life" was Army Air Corps pilot Gene Vidal who became director of the bureau of air commerce under Franklin D. Roosevelt and was the father of the writer Gore Vidal.
This is not terribly encyclopedic and may be giving undue weight to a particular PoV about her personal life (which by most scholarly accounts could be interpreted as "complex"). If other editors wish to see this sort of thing in the article, I would strongly suggest that a separate gossip or personal life section be included in the article, where a dozen sundry rumors and assertions about AE's love life can be aired in all their tabloid splendor. Gwen Gale 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...The Susan Butler book is really outstanding (and without peers at all if about the Earhart family heritage and the early period of her life); however, apparently this particular statement about romantic affair between Earhart and Vidal is unsubstantiated and reflects rather the personal belief of the author Susan Butler. Other authoritative Earhart's biographers (like Mary Lovell and Doris Rich) are more skeptic, estimating these relationships rather as a close friendship between two people who just liked each other and shared a lot about their profession, then a romantic affair. In her book "Amelia Earhart: a Biography" (Dell Publishing edition, 1989), page 230, Rich argues:   "Among Vidal's papers at the University of Wyoming is a leather wallet with three passport pictures in it. One is of a motherly looking, white-haired woman, a Mrs. Scovill, manager of a Santa Monica hotel where Vidal lived while working for TAT in 1929 and whose advice he sought later in finding a good summer camp for Gore [Vidal's son - AM]. The second picture is of Gore, and the third, Amelia. The collection is that of a family man, not a lover".     It seemed for Gore Vidal - then a kid - that Earhart was "in love" about his father... but even he considered that "his father's affection for Amelia was platonic". Apparently, there is no any kind of "proofs" of the romantic nature of the Earhart-Vidal relationships ever presented except only these rememberings/beliefs of Gore Vidal from his childhood times... and that's why i am joining the opinions of Rich (and Gwen), and tend to think that probably there is no much reason to include such an unsubstantiated and doubtful hearsay about the delicate intimate aspects of Earhart's private life into the encyclopedic article, that must be rather strictly factual.  Just my personal opinion of course. Also, i do agree with Gwen's position about the "Uncited "armchair" psychoanalysis". Kind Regards! - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gossip

message: I've removed the following uncited passage for discussion here:
Some biographers have speculated that this history of disapproval and doubt followed Amelia throughout her childhood... and into her adult flying career.
Most historians recognize that pschoanalytical study of an historical subject who is not available for person-to-person interviews and other examination is, to put it mildly, dodgy. A wildly speculative remark like this might have its place in a full length biographical book treatment but I don't think it's at all helpful in an encyclopedia, especially given it's been up for over a year and no citations have appeared. Gwen Gale 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited "armchair" psychoanalysis

message: I have moved this sub-section to the popular culture section. Gwen Gale 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've summarized it and moved the bulk of it to a separate article altogether. ShutterBugTrekker 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I disagree with both moves. I've undone ShutterBugTrekker's change meantime. --Guinnog 06:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the discussion, I'm more or less indifferent to moving the material to a separate article. However I think it should remain in the popular culture section since these spurious claims are nothing more than artifacts of celebrity in popular culture. Gwen Gale 07:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I see what you are getting at of course, but I'm not convinced. It'd be worth discussing that too I suppose. Well done for all your other sterling work on improving the article. --Guinnog 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Earhart and Fred Noonan disappeared in the Central Pacific Ocean, not the Western Pacific as described in your title.
There are three primary theories as to what happened to them:  They  "Crashed and Sank," the possibility of they're being picked up by the Japanese and taken to the Marshall Islands and then to Saipan where they died, and the possibility of coming down on Gardener (Nikumoro) Island in the Phoenix Group of Islands. Fred Goerner did not write that the plane came down on Saipan.  He suggested they came down on or near Mili Atoll in the Marshall Islands and were taken by a Japanese boat to Jaluit, other Japanese-held islands and then to Saipan.
Ron Reuther, reuther@comcast.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bzuk (talk • contribs) 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goerner's book is dismissed by any serious historian I've ever heard of. There's no evidence to support it. Gwen Gale 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims

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

message: If one checks the History of this discussion page, one will see that on January 22nd I made my first edit to the A.E. article: I changed the "Category:Possibly living people" back to "Category:Year of death unknown" — I have a "Watch" on the "Possibly living people" article and came to A.E. because of that.  I then put a watch on the A.E. article because of a minor but genuine interest in the topic.  I was not "brought in" by Bzuk to "game" the system. Hayford Peirce 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the diff in which Bzuk asked you to drop by. However, I am not saying that you are gaming the system. Gwen Gale 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A minor factual point

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

message: Gwen and Bzuk, thanks for your so quick replies and comments. I saw quite many authoritative and credible quotes of the competent contemporaries describing Earhart as a competent and skillful flier. The good example is the mentioned Leigh Wade's memories ("Amelia Earhart" by Doris L. Rich - page 85; also "Flying with Leight Wade" -Interview with Maj.Gen.Leigh Wade, Jan 14,1985). Also please see the memories of Jackie Cochran (published in 1954) where she shares her impressions about Earhart's flying abilities, and it is rather positive and even complimentary. And it goes on and on... i have many such "accounts" (sorry! - 20+ years of digging about Earhart :>) 
A few more points on Mantz... no smallest doubts he was a highly competent and skilled "top-league" pilot.. but as i wrote there are quite serious reasons to accept his publicly expressed opinions on Earhart not without some "bit of reasonable skepticism"...and at least don't treat it as a gospel. Also, it's known that Mantz's general opinion about women pilots wasn't much respective but rather colored by some chauvinistic attitude. For example about Jackie Cochran he said that "she never won a race or finished  a flight in her life" – and he said this after she did both (!) (see D.Rich, 1991, pp 240-241). 
I think it speaks volumes. BTW, wanted to propose some material for this article... a "timeline" of all the Earhart's moving, flying, activities etc. - almost "day by day" - (sometimes really day by day) during the period 1928-1937. I gradually composed it while researching about her life and career... but it would be too detailed of course for the encyclopedic article... so it would be good if you would just look at this and will decide whether something of this may be useful to upgrade the artice somehow. My Email is mandel97ua@yahoo.com - so please let me know if you or Bzuk are interested and I will share it anytime. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely, I think that all relevant information about the remarkable woman and aviator is important- just remember the one caution is that "no original research" is the basis of Wikipedia articles. However, your use of referenced works would be perfectly acceptable. In a way, I have been heartened by the discussion around what still remains, an enigmatic and interesting historical figure. Imagine, 60 years after her disappearance, people are still trying to sort out the details of what was a remarkably short career. I have taken the priviledge (affront) to slightly alter the presentation of your commentary, merely to have it read more ledgibly. Bzuk 4:46 25 January 2007 (UTC).   
Bzuk, thank you for your kind reply and for improving my commentary for a "more readable" view. Please write to my Email address (so i would have yours address) and i will send the document for your review... of course i can send it for Gwen too. Yes, of course it is not "original research" in true sense of the word, as it is based on the published sources about Earhart; the proper listing of used sources is a part of the document... you will see.  Kind Regards! - Alex V Mandel 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further to the above

message: Ok y'all, so I still think the header reads like a press release written by GP :) So am I like, blown off here or can we talk about it. I mean, the "many awards" language which could imply extraordinary flying skill to uninformed readers and the 99s blurb, which to me reads like a blurb and which I don't think is notable enough for a header. Gwen Gale 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about things like undue weight and ambiguity and by the bye, I have never used the word "promotional" in discussing my concerns about this header. Gwen Gale 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwen, sorry if I misinterpreted something! :) It's just how I interpreted the nature of your concerns after reading your phrase "I still think the header reads like a press release written by GP :) " Kind Regards - Alex V Mandel 16:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put another way (by this unabashed admirer of AE), I would ask, who wants young girls to think that taking extreme risks with life and limb by breaking aviation performance records at a young age is a viable path to a career as a highly skilled aviator? One way or another, AE did not receive those awards for exceptional skill as a pilot, but for her ability to survive exceptional risks (still quite a notable series of accomplishments, for feminism and otherwise). Gwen Gale 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Dear Colleagues, I propose to remove (did it now...) the phrase "Earhart asked for an open marriage", as technically incorrect and rather the "interpretation" then the fact. The fact is that there is no any word at all in the original Earhart's pre-nup letter neither about any "open marriage" nor the "freedom to engage in extramarital sexual relationships" that the  open marriage concept assumes - accordingly to the Wikipedia "Open Marriage" article and the definition given there. So, just staying strictly factual, Earhart never "asked for an open marriage" in that letter. It is rather just one of possible interpretations of us the modern people, well aware about "sexual revolution" of 60s and all its ideas, concepts and the ways to understand and interprete words and things. It seems for me that the original quote from original Earhart's letter (that must stay in the text) would "work better" - presenting the authentic Earhart's position in clear way and in her own original words, permitting everybody to build the own opinion/conclusion. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Open marriage" with its current meaning seems to date from around the 1960s, although the notion likely goes back centuries (there are plenty of documented examples) if not much longer. Either way, I think the use of this phrase or any other like it in the context of AE should be supported by a citation if it's to be put back into the article. Meanwhile I see no need to "permit" "everybody" to "build" their own opinions or whatever. In encyclopedic terms, if an aspect of AE's life is related to her notability and can be supported by citations, it belongs in the article. If not, it doesn't belong. Gwen Gale 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage (suggestion)