Talk:Glenn Miller

Why MIA and not dead?

I was confused why the lead section av the article describes Miller as MIA and not dead although he is described as dead in the info box. Although neither the plane or the body have been found the same goes for Leslie Howard who died/disappeared in a similar way but he is described as dead.DrKilleMoff (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. SilkTork (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

k 85.207.88.34 (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

But according this investigation Glenn Miller died in Paris one day before Christmas. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1997/07/13/Bild-Glenn-Miller-died-in-bordello/7556868766400/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.19.44 (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Glenn Miller, Norman Baessell and John Morgan died when their planes wings got iced over, on December 15, 1944, the day before the Battle of the Bulge started Dec 16, 1944. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

European documentary on TV - Glenn Millers death

I remember that I have seen a European documentary on TV about Glenn Miller some years ago. In that documentary, it was pointed out that his plane was destroyed by bombs dumped from Allied bomber planes returning from an aborted raid over Germany. They couldn't bomb their targets because of bad weather and they had the order to release them somewhere over the English Channel. At that time, Glenn Miller was on his way to Paris. His airplane flew at a lower height than the Allied bomber planes. Because of the foggy weather, they were not able to see Glenn Miller's plane. What happened was a terrible accident... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.57.72.40 (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Subsequent inquiries, including for the 2014 PBS documentary cited in the notes, have found that the timing is wrong and Miller's Norseman would not have been in the 'jettison' area of the Channel when the Lancasters of 3 Group, returning from a scrubbed raid to Siegen because the weather was too bad for their fighter escorts to rendezvous, ditched their bombs. It had been assumed that the Norseman flew in a direct line from Bedford, passing over London, but that is unlikely as the London defence area was normally to be avoided. The usual waypoint, to the west of London, was Reading. Latterly the diary of a 17-year-old planespotter in Reading has come to light, recording that he spotted a Norseman over Reading, headed east-south-east (the direction you would set for Paris from that waypoint) on the afternoon of 15 December. If that was Miller's aircraft (and seemingly there was only one other Norseman in the air over southern England that afternoon), then, given the departure time, the known cruise speed and the detour around London, it would have been over the Channel too late to be hit by 3 Group's bombs. If, as the PBS documentary claimed, the Norseman's pilot was not instrument-rated, then in that bad weather anything could have happened. Carburettor icing in cloud has been suggested, but a pilot unqualified on instruments could easily lose orientation when flying blind and just fly into the sea. https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/mystery-glenn-millers-death-solved-951608 Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Miller, Norman Baessell and John Morgan died when their planes wings got iced over, on December 15, 1944, the day before the Battle of the Bulge started Dec 16, 1944. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Syd Lawrence

Surprised to see no mention here. His orchestra was a Muller tribute band before tribute bands were even a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1008:6D6:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2D (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Nose-down dive"

"On December 15, Morgan flew at under 2,000 feet (610 m) in cold and wet conditions. At 155 miles per hour (249 km/h) airspeed, an engine failure would result in a nose-down dive. The pilot would have about eight seconds to recover the airplane."

This is absolute drivel written by someone with zero knowledge of aviation. --151.47.188.245 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Right you are. I removed the nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Glenn Miller, Norman Baessell and John Morgan died when their planes wings got iced over, on December 15, 1944, the day before the Battle of the Bulge started Dec 16, 1944. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The description of "Glenn Miller Declassified " book

The tone of this description does not seem to me to be quite right for an encyclopaedia, particularly the words I have emboldened.

• "following a seven-year investigation authorized and encouraged by the Glenn Miller estate"
• "the comprehensive book": is comprehensive POV?
• "With unprecedented access to previously unavailable documents from numerous government agencies"
• "exposed key facts"
• "established beyond doubt": is this POV?
• "claim was physically impossible" and "could not have physically arrived": does physically add anything except too much emphasis?

FrankSier (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I've learned. Glenn Miller, Norman Baessell and John Morgan died when their planes wings got iced over, on December 15, 1944, the day before the Battle of the Bulge started Dec 16, 1944. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Disappearance

This section reads very strangely. It makes reference to various speculations, including conspiracy theories, without giving any detail, and then concludes by suggesting that all controversies have been answered by the Shenkle biography. An encyclopaedia entry should surely acknowledge that there has been controversy even if it is felt that it has now been explained.Ntmr (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We should add this sentence to clarify things. Glenn Miller, Norman Baessell and John Morgan died when their planes wings got iced over, on December 15, 1944, the day before the Battle of the Bulge started Dec 16, 1944. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• New-GlenMiller Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible plane sighting

Should we mention that the possible sighting in 1987? https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/glenn-miller-mysterious-plane-disappearance-might-soon-be-solved/ 2600:100C:A205:743B:461:D767:7031:DAE2 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

An editor removed the section on the conspiracy theories surrounding Miller's death in September 2022, see diff [1]. I'm not sure why though—per WP:FRINGE, "a fringe theory must receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Fred Shaw's claims (and the response to them, which is in the old revision) seem to meet that criteria. See [2][3][4][5][6]. I therefore propose the section be added back. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

the editor removed speculation that was pretty well demolished by through studies reported in Spragg, Dennis Glenn Miller Declassified (U of Nebraska Press 2017).. ISBN 978-1612348957. The Spragg book is reported in the article. The scholarly journal Annals of Iowa says "Spragg is most effective in subtly countering conspiracy theories." That leaves conspiracies in the fringe category. The old speculation should not be added back in. Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that it's a fringe theory. Yes, it's speculation. But that's not a reason to not include it if multiple reliable sources have reported on its existence, per FRINGE—"Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia." How can we describe Spragg's response to it if we don't even describe what the fringe theory is? The current paragraph on Spragg reads quite bizarrely given this fact—how would a reader know what the accusations of "foul play" that were debunked are when the article doesn't describe them? Also, the revision that includes the conspiracy theories was much more detailed in describing Spragg's response than what exists now, so its removal can't really be a question of undue weight. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

are there weird conspiracy theories about Glenn Miller? Yes. Do popular magazines (like PEOPLE) every few years mention them? Does ANY reliable secondary source (like a book published by a major university press) say any of these conspiracy theories is true? No not one. Instead they say the conspiracy theories are baseless and very likely impossible to have happened. --EG his plane was hit by discarded bombs (there were no bomb raids that day and no returning bombers and no discarded bombs.) Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the theories are true, I'm arguing we should mention them in the article because they are notable, as the sources above clearly show. Can you tell me how that goes against Wikipedia policy? AbsoluteWissen (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

the sources above cited say there are people who speculate on his death, but they do not indicatethat any reliable source believes them. Wiki definition of fringe = a minority of reliable secondary sources--that is one or more say "likely true". Here we have zero so it's beyond the fringe. I am using WP:FRINGE = " that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. " Rjensen (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's NPOV, which isn't really relevant to the question of notability here, I would say. The full quote (in a mixed up order for some reason) is:

The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.

I don't believe your definition of a fringe theory is correct. The point of a fringe theory, like Holocaust denialism, is that no reliable sources believe it—it's still notable enough to be talked about and debunked in an article. "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents". AbsoluteWissen (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's a current reliable source

"Over the decades, many theories came about as to what happened to Major Glenn Miller, from the likely-mechanical failure, to the outrageous—that Miller had died in a brothel in Paris and the flight was a cover-up. In the 1980s a former Royal Air Force member claimed that he saw a jettisoned bomb from a returning bombing run hit a Norseman over the Channel and destroy it. That theory, like the rest, was eventually debunked. The most realistic cause for the aircraft’s disappearance is mechanical failure. The Norseman had a carburetor that was known to freeze over, and in the cold December weather, that was a dangerous reality." source

National WW2 Museum December 15, 2019 online here I added bold Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, that does seem quite similar to how this very article described the conspiracy theories pre-deletion:

Numerous unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and hypotheses have been published about Miller's death. Among them are that he was assassinated after Dwight D. Eisenhower sent him on a secret mission to negotiate a peace deal with Nazi Germany; that he died of a heart attack in a brothel after arriving in Paris; and that his aircraft was hit by bombs being jettisoned by Allied bombers returning from an aborted mission to Germany. The most likely scenario was that Miller's C-64 Norseman flew into cold weather and experienced carburetor icing, causing the aircraft to lose power and crash in the cold water. Any survivors would have died of hypothermia within 20 minutes.

But I'm not sure what your point is—that's yet another reliable source that mentions (and debunks) Shaw's claim, so again I would say it supports mentioning the fringe theory in this article. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue is we are using two different meaning of fringe, #1) Wikipedia== view that a minority of reliable sources state to be true; #2) reliable sources indicate that there are people who believe in them but they have been debunked by reliable sources and no reliable source says they are true. the various conspiracy theories, I suggest, never meet the Wiki criteria #1 because they have zero reliable sources that state they are true--they are all debunked. In this case we require a source that is expert on WW2 aircraft (and not just reliable on popular music). Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly I'll state that an aviation historian (Roy Nesbit) gave at least some credence to the theory, and published a book that talked about it, as cited in the 2001 Guardian source. That source also mentions a BBC documentary at the time which claims friendly fire. The 2000 Guardian source also quotes "ministry of defence's air history branch" officials as believing the theory is the most plausible. So that doesn't really seem like just one person who promoted this theory, but closer to a 'significant minority with prominent adherents'.

But if that's your final position, I think we would have to remove the current mention of foul play that exists in the article, because a) according to you it's too fringe and b) it doesn't make any sense to debunk something that we haven't even explained.

Hence, I'm going to ask for other input from editors at WP:FTN—if it were up to me I would be happy with the amount of detail that was in the article prereversion, simply because it's interesting to read exactly how Shaw's theories were debunked. If that gives too much weight to this theory in your view, this is along the lines of what I propose (see diff for refs, I would also ideally cite pages from Spragg as the revision in 2022 does not):

Numerous unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and hypotheses have been published about Miller's death. The most likely scenario was that Miller's C-64 Norseman flew into cold weather and experienced carburetor icing, causing the aircraft to lose power and crash in the cold water.

In 1956, former RAF navigator Fred Shaw claimed that he watched a Norseman crash into the channel after being either hit by a bomb or knocked over by a nearby explosive blast as a fleet of RAF Lancasters, of which he was part, released their bombs into the English Channel while returning from an aborted bombing mission. Shaw checked his old logbook and found that was the same day and time as Miller's flight (explaining the one-hour discrepancy in the reports by the American use of local time versus the RAF's Greenwich time.)

In response to these claims, in 2017, following a seven-year investigation authorized and encouraged by the Glenn Miller estate, historian Dennis M. Spragg published the book Glenn Miller Declassified. According to the book, Miller had no other duties than as a musical and broadcasting officer, and his high profile and schedule ruled out any clandestine role as later speculated by sensationalists. The book concluded that he was not the victim of foul play or friendly fire, and found that American and British records document a bombing run several hours before Miller's plane could have reached the area. It also stated that the Eighth Air Force established that "without evidence to the contrary" the C-64 went down over the water due to the probability of engine/carburetor ice and/or the possibilities of wing ice and pilot spatial disorientation.

Here's a list of references I've found that talk about the theory:

AbsoluteWissen (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Could someone clarify how 'hit by a discarded bomb' qualifies as a conspiracy theory? Who were the alleged conspirators? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

At least in my proposal, that line comes from the content previously in the article, which mentioned nonsense claims about 'Eisenhower using Miller as a negotiator with Nazi Germany' alongside Shaw's claims. That could be changed. But I agree, it doesn't make much sense to call it a conspiracy theory unless there's some accusation of cover up. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The earlier version of the article entitled the section 'Conspiracy theories and other explanations of Miller's death', which seems to be the root of the problem here. There were some wild claims made which certainly look like conspiracy theories, but not all of the subsequently-disproven suggestions were, by any means. They should never have been lumped together like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)