Talk:Neta Snook Southern

Amelia Earhart
There is some confusion on whether Amelia was merely "interested in reading about" the Koran, or whether she actually studied it with diligence. The cited reference says that Snook maintained that Earhart enjoyed reading the Koran, and continually urged Snook to read it. I reverted the edit since there was no discussion, and the change seemed to be a lengthy bit of nit-picking based on the editor's opinion (not fact). Discussion is welcome, if you please, prior to changing my contribution, keeping in mind that the editor's opinion [WP:NOR] is irrelevant. BomberJoe 06:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Hi Bomber Joe, after reading your comments above, I am a bit confused. Your submission was not reverted instead I posted a note in the edit summary. As to no discussion, I did not see your discussion anywhere, here or on the Amelia Earhart talk page before you made this major claim. Regardless of whether you had a cited statement, it was not reversed nor altered, instead it was incorporated within the body of the text. Nevertheless, Mary S. Lovell is the only one of the many Amelia Earhart biographers who refers to the incident where the two women who were friends, did not share the same opinion about ideas related to religion. Earhart was a voracious reader and Snook was not. Snook was a pilot, dressed like a pilot, acted like a pilot and in some instances, looked so much the part that Doris Rich describes her as constantly in overalls while Amelia was always stylishly dressed. Susan Butler states that a mutual friend remarked, "We were never quite sure whether 'Snooky' was a man or a woman." Although they became close friends and shared confidences, Neta did not share the same intellectual curiosity that marked Earhart's "inquiring agnostic" interests. Neta recalled that Amelia arrived at Kinner field with a book under her arm (it was on aerodynamics, on loan from the library) and afterward, "I soon became accustomed to seeing her with a book... she always carried one." Lovell states, " Amelia's literary interests were extremely varied and ranged through technical books on aviation to Rossetti's poems, Omar Khayaam's Rubaiyat, and Carl Sandberg. On one occasion, she brought a history of Islam and tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Neta to read it." (1989, p. 35-36 and also appearing in Neta's biography, "I Taught.., p. 105-106)) Rather than a Koran as stated, Amelia had little time for religion but had a passion for learning that clashed with Neta's very singular purpose and that was to fly and make a living as a flyer. However, Neta did have strong views on religion and Butler states that "from the beginning, Neta felt threatened by Amelia's intellect and probing mind. Neta was a Seventh Day Adventist and a fundamentalist who believed in the imminent end of the world; Amelia was an inquiring agnostic and between them was a gulf that grew wider as they got to know each other." (1989, p. 103) So the statement as presented "Although Snook, a Christian, would occasionally complain about Amelia's predilection for studying the Koran" not only has errors in content based on Neta's own words, it is also not accurate according to a number of authoritative sources and more than spurious, is history revised into some "pop fiction." When Amelia says in a recently revealed letter to Neta, "I do remember discussions of the Koran," that is the singular instance of the Koran being noted anywhere and does not reveal that Amelia was even reading the Koran. I suggest you alter this claim. FWIW Bzuk 13:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Hello Bzuk, it's not necessary to inform others if content is submitted that is referenced and documented, and is NPOV. However, discussion is advised before changing someone else's properly sourced content.  I see that you changed my content and hour and a half after I submitted the new information, so I simply put it back the way it was when I submitted it because it wasn't ready to be changed. It's still too early to assume that Amelia was simply an "inquiring agnostic" if her study habits were annoying her instructor. There is room to suggest that Amelia was a slightly annoying student, even a bit of a dilettante ("Between them was a gulf that grew wider as they got to know each other"). In this case, I'm more inclined to give credence to the surviving instructor, rather than the student who got lost. But let's remember that this discussion page is for the purpose of improving the verifiable content rather than quibbling about whose POV is more believable.  BTW, for some reason, you have glossed over the Gilder Lehman reference that says, inter alia, "...[Amelia] enjoyed reading the Koran and embraced some of the religion's overall philosophy as a form of spiritual guidance."  Or did you not see that? BomberJoe 09:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bomber Joe, thanks for your reply. I think you may have made a mistake in that I did not change or revert your submission rather I incorporated it into the text in a different location as the original entry changed the flow of the paragraph in which it appeared. Check back to the edit history to see the actual placement that occurred. My contention is that edits that are "good faith" should not be reverted or altered but "improved" as needed. My change in sentence structure for readability was my reaction to this jarring note being introduced without talk page discussion. As to the content issue, properly sourced but very biased research is definitely the problem with the claim made. I have read the "discovery letter" that Ana Ramirez-Luhrs, the Reading Room Librarian from the Gilder Lehman Institute of American History had used as the basis of the sweeping declaration. "I do remember discussions of the Koran, and cold boiled potatoes." is the actual quote. These words are the only basis of the entire research paper which flies in the face of every other documented and published source including Amelia Earhart and Neta Snook's own biographies. Read the quote from the eyes of a independently-minded historian and you get the same reaction that every other researcher has made in that in the context of Amelia's life, an avid reader/student who had an aversion to religious beliefs as a recognized agnostic. Your outright take on the issue with the statement that "Although Snook, a Christian, would occasionally complain about Amelia's predilection for studying the Koran," is a fallacious and "weighted" statement that is not borne out by the evidence. Snook was a Seventh Day Adventist and had some strict beliefs that ran counter to those of Amelia's acknowledged agnostic ways, not her belief or preoccupation with the Koran or islamic beliefs. Although both women (roughly the same age) were university-trained, they each had a different attitude to life. While Amelia was a voracious reader, explored ideas and was interested in a wide range of subjects, Neta was very purpose-driven and had no time for anything other than her chosen career of flying. You want to make a statement about Neta, then this is a well established fact, Neta was a singular-minded aviator who had a passion for flying. Neta and Amelia were friends and had a much closer relationship than the usual teacher-student but that friendship eventually was affected by Amelia's independent streak not by her religious beliefs. Neta worried about Amelia's progress as a student when she apparently took many chances including taking off and landing around a recognized hazard, an electrical line strung up around the perimeter of Kinner Field. When Amelia bought the Kinner Airster against Neta's advice that it was too much an aircraft for Amelia to handle, her student proceeded to use it as a demonstrator for Bert Kinner and even set off to set a world altitude record for women in it. Neta also was not interested in Amelia's interests and Amelia alludes to the gradual distancing that occurred in the friendship. Amelia eventually made the decision to end her relationship and sought out a new flight training instructor, John Montijo, a former Army instructor. Now in the context of all of this, read the words again that Amelia types on a Cosmopolitan magazine stationary. She is acknowledging Neta's preceding letter in a perfunctory way, and has alluded to Neta's recollection of discussion of the Koran. There is no other mention of the Koran in any of Amelia's extensive collection of letters nor does it appear in any contemporary or other reference source. Neta does not refer to the Koran in her biography and other Earhart biographers specifically note that it was a book on Islamic history that Amelia took out of the library that was discussed once but Neta was disinterested in the discussion. No mention of complaints other than Amelia's peevish reaction to Neta not being interested in anything other than talking about flying. That was the real reason for Amelia dropping Neta as a teacher and friend was that she perceived her friend was too singular in interests and would never rise to her level as a "learner." Neta tried to make a connection later that Amelia acknowledged in the form of a letter (the Gilder Lehman collection letter) but it was a definite "brush off letter" which ends with "Sometimes our paths may cross again, and we may be able to have a few words about the old days." The two never met, spoke or communicated again. So with this background, revise your statement: "predilection for studying the Koran"- when all she did was take out a library book on Islamic history that referred to the Koran, "Although Snook, a Christian, would occasionally complain" about what? that Amelia did not recognize any religion is closer to the truth because as an agnostic she made her beliefs plain. The whole statement is based on a misreading of the Gilder Lehman letter which the researcher, Ana Ramirez-Luhrs has made. It is so easy to "take things at face value" and not look beyond. FWIW Bzuk 11:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

I've rm'd the Koran reference for the following reasons:


 * The citation provided does not support the assertion Snook "complained" about it. The cite only supports an assertion Snook refused to even read it and in the same breath (so to speak) recalls they also talked about cold boiled potatoes, which clearly puts this in the context of a series of wide-ranging and fun conversations about "life and stuff." In academic terms... like, big woof.
 * This article is about Snook, not AE's reading habits.
 * WP:WEIGHT. Lots of well-read folks have read the Koran out of interest in history, anthropology, current events, comparative religion, whatever. Any mention of AE reading the Koran should also mention several other representative titles on her lifelong reading list so as not to mislead readers.
 * For context only, my mum read the Koran cover to cover when I was about 12, a Penguin UK paperback. Her conclusion (more or less), noting the biblical history it shared in common with the Bible: "Wow. So much fire and brimstone but I guess it's rather much the same god after all..." She died a nominal Presbyterian who liked to read, by the bye.
 * I've read big swaths of the Koran and regard having done as no more or less than being somewhat well-read.
 * I would support a mention of AE's conversations with Snook if it were more wholly drawn from Snook's religious beliefs and closely followed the source including the cold boiled potatoes, which is to say, they talked about the Koran, Snook refused to even read it, years later they mentioned in passing their past conversations with what I take to be fondness. Girls do that.

Cheers! Gwen Gale 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for at least acknowledging your reasons for the arbitrary editing of properly sourced content. I would prefer that you leave the sourced content as submitted until we agree on any changes, rather than simply removing the content.  I made the contribution, and you are not to take your fire-axe to it without discussing it first.  It appears that you're not particularly knowledgeable about aviation, and the value of historical information, and I'd would like to ask you to refrain from vandalism.  I realize that vandalism appears to be a useful option, but it only gets people bent out of shape. The record shows that AE was not a reliable aviator from the beginning, that Snook had reservations about her abilities, and that AE was a bit of a dilletante.  Snook had second thoughts about her doubts, but her original suspicions were correct.  My source for this material is more reliable than Bzuk's source (his mum) for diminishing it.  Many famous aviators and astronauts were Christians (for example: Wright brothers or Columbia shuttle commander Rick Husband), and it's useful to acknowledge the strength and determination that accrues to Bible-thumping aviators.  They freely acknowledge where they're coming from, so it's valuable information.  Please don't stifle it - other people like to know about this stuff. If you want to change anything, please discuss it first.  You're simply changing content first, and explaining your vandalism afterward.  This is not the correct way to add to a Wikipedia topic, and a violation of WP etiquette. 66.183.87.254 08:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for the radical change in juxtaposing a major addition into an article based on a questionable piece of research that has already been fully debated. The original entry was allowed in an uneasy exchange of views that culminated in these discussions when the submitter insisted on a particular view being put into the article, i.e. that Amelia Earhart and Neta Snook had disagreements about AE's "predilection for studying the Koran." This statement is at best spurious, and is not accepted by any major scholar or researcher. It is based on a one word note about the Koran in a letter sent to Neta, that was basically saying "nice talking to 'ya, but buzz off." Neta and Amelia were friends but grew apart because Neta's interests were singular and revolved around aviation and her flying career. Amelia had a much wider range of interests, tried to involve her friend in some of these interests, found she wasn't interested, and moved on. Far from being fascinated or influenced by the Islamic religion, Amelia was an acknowledged agnostic who did not attend church or join a religion. Neta was a Seventh Day Adventist but neither woman forced their view of religion on each other as evidenced by both of their biographies. Both Gwen Gale (a highly experienced Earhart scholar and author) and I have made our points that your information is not reliable, sends a POV viewpoint in introducing a religious aspect that did not exist in an agnostic and "weights" the article into a polemic. What is most disturbing from the outset is the characterizations and claims of vandalism that are being bandied about. To call Gwen a vandal is both ludicrous and disingenuous coming from an editor who has made no substantial contributions to this article other than inserting a contentious, debatable POV. The fact that there is some underlying religious cause that is being promoted here is also an issue. Take these kind of debates to other forums. Earhart was not a follower of Islam, she read ONE book on Islamic history taken out of the library. Snook never refers to the Koran in her published work nor does a mention of the Koran or any influence of Islamic religion ever figure in any of the voluminous works on Earhart. The mere mention once in a "sign-off" letter of the Koran is Amelia"s recollection of the discussion that she tried to initiate with Neta who was disinterested in any discussion of topics unrelated to aviation. The Reading-room researcher who wrote the original article based on the discovery of Amelia Earhart's letter to Neta Snook made an allusion to AE that was not borne out by further delving into the public record and cannot be considered as a primary source since it has no support in the academic community, and further reading into a one word note that AE was a student of the Koran is unsupportable. AE is acknowlding a prior relationship, makes an aside about a discussion that took place, uses the word "Koran" as a shortcut to the topic of the discussion that Susan Butler identifies as Islamic history not religion. Neta was simply not interested in talking anything other than flying while Amelia was a prodigious reader and was curious about a great number of subjects. If you want to delve into Neta's background, this article is the perfect place to do that but again, this is an encyclopedic article, not the forum to promote one's religious beliefs. FWIW Bzuk 13:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

I don't think AE's having read the Koran, or having talked about it with Snook, is relevent to this short article (WP:WEIGHT). As for mentioning any of this in Amelia Earhart, she read lots of books and talked about lots of stuff with her friends. I agree with Bzuk that there is zero evidence AE was a "student" of the Koran (which implies a theological, faith-based interest and devotion). Lots of folks have read the Koran to to further educate themselves about the world they live in, as I discussed in a previous post. Implying anything else from this fragmentary citation would be WP:Original research. My take on this is, the only place the Snook anecdote could be helpfully handled on this public wiki would be in an article called Amelia Earhart's reading habits (or something like that), which could thoroughly describe the wide variety of books she read and subsequently discussed with friends, in a context which would not mislead readers. Meanwhile, the Koran conversation is an utterly trivial aspect of both Snook's life and her friendship with AE, has nothing to do with her notable career as a pilot and hence does not belong in an encyclopedic article of this length and breadth. Lastly, I must remind BomberJoe the supplied citation in no way supports an assertion Snook "complained" about anything having to do with AE or the Koran. Gwen Gale 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this question is irrelevant to the article. Snook was, above all, a flight instructor who was worried about AE's lack of diligence in developing her aviation skills, and there are reasons for AE's slackness.  This is not a novel theory - aviators for decades have pondered this question. Flight instruction is an exact science, and instructors spend huge amounts of time analyzing poor performance. In other words, Snook thought that AE was a bit of a dilettante.  Her interest in the Koran, whether as an idle reader or as someone who had the time to "study" the Koran when she should have been applying herself to her aviation studies, is a most important piece of information in studying Snook's efforts to develop AE's flying skills.  The evidence is that AE was prone to accidents during her training, and that she eventually got lost and crashed.  There is a reason for every aviation accident. This is most important to aviators.  It's not an accident that their aviation careers varied to this extent, and students of aviation like to know even the smallest details that explain an accident-prone aviator's career.


 * It appears to me that you are uninformed aviators, with no interest in analyzing the development of aviation skills, but instead you are carrying on with other irrelevant trivia. Removing my submission, without discussion, appears to me to be vandalism, especially since you have little knowledge about aviation and aviation safety.  I will concede, perhaps that it was not vandalism maybe due to youthful enthusiasm, and perhaps we are more in the realm of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Regardless, I must ask you to stop trying to control history in order to advance a particular WP:POV. That you don't like a properly sourced item and deleted it without discussion says to me, with all due respect, that you are trying to WP:OWN this article. BomberJoe 15:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * AE was at best an average pilot but you can't span citations to advance your own or anyone else's theory as to why. I strongly urge you to read WP:Original Research. Meanwhile, the citation you provided does not support your thesis that AE's mediocre flying skills were caused by distraction, interest in the Koran or anything else. Nor does the citation offer any assertion Snook's Christianity had anything to do with her judgement as an FI. Truth be told, there are lots of exceptional pilots who like reading and talking about many and sundry topics. Anyway, you're new here and it seems to me you could have a lot to offer if you'd first bone up on original research (WP:OR) along with WP:V and WP:RS. All the best! Gwen Gale 17:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What gall, making characterizations without any knowledge of the two editors involved and talk about who is claiming "ownership"? Gwen (a pseudonym for an accomplished author and scholar) and I have been editing the various Wikipedia articles relating to the Amelia Earhart legacy. If you want to stop pontificating, throwing up nonsensical "straw man" arguments and take a look at your bias, then maybe there could be a reasoned discourse. The statement, "Snook, a Christian, was concerned about her student's diligence, and once complained about Amelia reading the Koran during her flight instruction phase." is not borne out by the evidence you cite, and what does the fact that Snook is a Christian have to do with the price of tea in China? Your theories are fine, keep them here, however, the overreaching statements you have made in the article citing questionable authorities have not met the test of reliable sources. FWIW, if you are interested in my background, merely do a search on my name. Bzuk 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Yep. BomberJoe, think of it this way. For all I know, you could be on to something in thinking AE was distracted from her flying lessons by other interests, it's a reasonable conclusion. However, it's your conclusion and can't be included in the article because it's your WP:Original research. If you can find a verifiable citation somewhere in either a reliable, published secondary or primary source in which someone else has drawn that same conclusion, I'd support putting in the article, but so long as it's your interpretation, editors can remove it as unsupported OR. On this thread though, flying is a combination of many aptitudes, including a number of raw talents having to do with depth perception, reflex, reaction to motion, quick thinking, attention span, problem solving and so on. Then there are things like motivation, education, learned skills and habits. The mix gets skeinish very fast, which is likely why most authors have avoided speculating too much about why she flew like she did. AE was a very intelligent person, not reckless, but more or less self-confident and very open to taking big risks when the hoped for outcome was appealing enough which is to say, without asking her or finding a pithy quote of something she may have said about it, we're guessing. Gwen Gale 21:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for saying so, but there's no evidence that either of you is an "accomplished author and scholar", so I would ask you with the limited respect that anonymous amateur editors deserve, to stop pretending that you are something that you are not. I, too, can claim to be a respected author and scholar - with a great deal more experience than you are offering.  I appreciate your candidness in telling us that "[your] mum read the Koran cover to cover", but that is an insufficient reference to support your position.  Nor do I subscribe to your suggestion that "Girls do that".  This shows that you have no experience or knowledge of woman flight instructors, nor do you have any experience in flight instruction.  Snook was a professional instructor in a dangerous activity.  She was aware of the dangers posed by aeronautical dilettantes.  But there is also a danger that editorial dilettantes will try to modify history in order to advance their own agendas.   It is very obvious that what you have said on this talk page supports what I had written in the article.  Your notes here support my contribution there. In other words, you are not contesting the validity of anything, but you are simply asserting control over the page as a would-be owner. Please stop behaving as if you WP:OWN this topic, and start respecting the contributions of others. BomberJoe (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you re-read your contentions that are based on OR interpretations and are not supported even by the "one-word" evidence that you have tailored into a contention that Snook considered Earhart a dilettante (I have yet to see that contention anywhere and instead there are numerous mentions by Butler, Rich and Lovell of the friendship each women had for each other) and a danger by being distracted in reading the Koran (not borne out by any researchers). If you do cursory searches on either Gwen or myself, you will find that we both are published authors and have a background in Earhart scholarship. I have written seven books on aviation history and worked on ten films as a historical consultant; alternately I am the training coordinator at an aviation safety school and deal with training issues daily. As for ownership, re-read your efforts to re-write this article to your point of view. Consensus-driven resolutions are the key to this issue. You do not have a consensus for your views. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

BomberJoe I was only trying to be helpful. Your edit is WP:OR, has been reverted as such and will likely be again if you put it back. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues: after reading this long thread about Koran it seems for me like we are actually "clashing" over the relatively little episode that may seem quite noteworthy - especially in today's world political situation and specific attention attracted to Islam and Koran because of some well known sad circumstances. However whether this episode is really important in relation to the actual historic context and basic topic of this article (Neta Snook), is not so obvious for me... frankly, i doubt it. To argue with this episode as a proof that Earhart was "dilettante", or not enough competent pupil, or that her other interests somehow seriously "distracted" her from learning to fly, etc. seems for me as a big stretch substantiated by nothing factual, and thus just a POV. If somebody is disagree please just prove your point with a clear and certain quote from Snook saying something like this. As Bzuk fairly noted, the available sources and quotes rather proves that both women had a high professional and personal respect to each other... particularly, Snook said that AE "took to the air like a duck into the water and progressed rapidly". 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 - mainly of Earhart's well known and too-obviously-jealous rival Elinor Smith - with much more numerous and highly respective competent opinions of other top-class professional pilots (who knew Earhart well and flew with her) just ignored, although these opinions and evidence are quoted in many books. Also, contrary to popular "canonized myth", Earhart's number of accidents was pretty small - for her times and circumstances of contemporary flying. This all however, is: 1) rather related to Earhart's not Snook's career, and  2) we (same editors - Bzuk, Gwen, and I) already were over this all and far not once... so i would rather suggest to anybody interested to read the Talk Page of the "Amelia Earhart" article where all the related opinions and arguments are presented in details - instead of restarting this beaten-to-death dispute again, now on the "Neta Snook" talk page. As about other Earhart's interests in the period of her friendship with Snook - including reading - these interests are really mentioned in many Earhart books, and she really had extensive interests in reading. Particularly she studied the history of California, also a bit of Spanish, and other issues and topics.. so i can't see why the Islam and Koran must be a specially noteworthy issue in this particular context. It was just one of the many topics mentioned and discussed between these two friends during the period of their friendly and professional relationships. Kind regards to all - sincerely, Alex V Mandel (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A Mediocre Pilot
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)
 * 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).
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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).
 * ...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)

P.S. - on Earhart and agnosticism
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)
 * 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).

Bzuk, thank you for your comments... i certainly agree with your points... Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Kinner Sportster
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)
 * 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).
 * 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)
 * 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).
 * 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)

Neta Snook's Correct Name
The quotation marks around "Neta" suggests that is her nickname, probably thought to be a shortened version of Anita. However, Neta is actually the middle name of Mary Neta Snook and was (and still is) the name used by her family and by others who actually knew her. I've seen "Anita" here and elsewhere on the net, but does it exist in any proper source? Thanks, Spohnheimer (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The information was derived from journalist/author Patti Marshall who originally published an article with the name Anita identified in the January 2007 issue of Aviation History magazine.
 * Thanks so much for your quick response. Neta's nephew had asked me to see if this could be corrected, because the incorrect form seems to be proliferating. Spohnheimer (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one last thought, was her name Mary Neta Snook rather than Neta Snook? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, that is so, but her whole given name was rarely used; everyone just called her Neta. All family photos and correspondence we have access to show her listed as just Neta. You may view  to see how she signed correspondence within her family. And although her official flying license uses (Miss) Neta Snook, her French Federation Aeronautique Internationale license (on the following web page) shows her proper name of Mary Neta Snook (but she actually signed the document as Neta Snook). We feel the married form of "Neta Snook Southern," the proper name of "Mary Neta Snook" and the common "Neta Snook" are all appropriate ways to refer to Neta. Thanks so much! Spohnheimer (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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