Talk:Amelia Earhart

More detail on the Deep Sea Vision Discovery reported on 2024 January 29?

Could we add a bit more detail to the new paragraph on the Deep Sea Vision discovery? NPR says "the shape of the object in the sonar images closely resembles Earhart's aircraft, a Lockheed Electra, both in size and tail", which is a bit more compelling than the article's current text, "what appeared to [be] an airplane shaped [sic] object". (The word "be" is missing, and the text "airplane shaped" should be "airplane-shaped", but those are separate issues.) NPR also says that the discovery is "about 100 miles off Howland Island", which is a little more specific than "within 100 miles from Howland Island". (In case the article updates, the version I am citing is archived here.) Per WP:ER, I am seeking consensus on this question before proposing specific wording changes. 166.181.88.109 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I will fiddle with it. Refreshing to see someone other than TIGHAR who always seems to be pushing their latest theory. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it needs more. I’ve read dissenting comment that it is not an aircraft wreck. Too easy to get caught up in the latest theory and buzz. Newzild (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Dissenting comment from where? The news sources I looked are all cautiously positive. And I didn't add "more" conjecture, just more context. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Here for example, but plenty more if you look: https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/have-we-found-sonar-evidence-of-amelia-earharts-lost-plane-not-so-fast-experts-say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 06:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also here: https://time.com/6589865/amelia-earhart-missing-plane-possible-discovery/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 06:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

On one of those the opposing viewpoint is from a TIGHAR representative, which isn't worth upholding. The other one is cautiously optimistic. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to directly copy sources. Apparently that can lead to WP:CCIs. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

My expectation is that her Electra has been discovered and we'll find out for sure sometime this year. It is for this reason i've been editing the article heavily and getting it into better shape for an influx of readers. To the question at hand - I've considered how the possible discovery section could be expanded but I don't think there's much to add without speculating - and this article has plenty of speculation already, we can just wait and see. Desertarun (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Split

Would anyone oppose the split out of the in-depth detail about her disappearance to a new article Disappearance of Amelia Earhart? Currently at over 13,000 words which in my view qualifies as WP:TOOBIG. A summary on the main article I think would work better for the general reader. ITBF (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I really see no problem, and also it could be beneficial. To be honest, most look this up including myself to hear about the disappearance rather than her actual life most of the time.

Additionally, this article is, yes, too big. Even I have trouble reading it

With the new info on this, and some new news likely coming, I vote in favor of it. IEditPolitics (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised this hasn't been split yet. The article is indeed quite big with 13k bytes of prose, and takes a while to load. Thus, I support splitting. Spinixster (chat!) 09:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Support. Go for it. SilkTork (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Support. Just scrolling through makes apparent the need for a split. Conspiracy theories should be split into their own article/hellspace whenever possible anyway. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Also Support. I think one correction should be done: the article should be probably titled Disappearance of Amelia Earhart AND FRED NOONAN (emphasis added). Noonan is pretty much forgotten or often seen as a footnote in the Earhart vanishing; even the recent news on the apparent sonar discovery hardly, if ever mentioned his name. It was not one person who was lost, it was two. 92.17.192.24 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Support. The split is a good idea, under Earhart's name as proposed. No need to change the title to include Noonan. It was Earhart's enterprise in the first place, and the media focus primarily on her. Wikipedia simply summarizes the literature; it doesn't try to correct perceived inbalances in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Support - Without Noonan's name. The disappearance is primarily known for Earhart's involvement, and Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I spunout the article to Amelia Earhart disappearance conspiracy theories and it was promptly moved to Speculation on the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. I'm ambivalent about whether it should use conspiracy theories or speculation on the disappearance but either way I don't see the need to include Noonan in the title. Desertarun (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who moved it. There were two people in the plane, so I really think it's difficult to argue against - Earhart was more famous, yes, but two people died. It seems unseemly not to mention both. Note that we have 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash and Death of Kobe Bryant is only a redirect.
  • I'm strongly opposed to "conspiracy theories" per my edit summary, which misrepresents TIGHAR. Now. I don't believe TIGHAR's claims for a second; I think they're engaged in wishful thinking. But their claims are not a "conspiracy theory"; they're not claiming some shadowy cabal covered up the incident, they're claiming that the plane that flew over Gardner Island to check it simply made a mistake and missed two people. Which, if we adopt for a moment the hypothesis is actually true, is certainly plausible - humans make mistakes when viewing things from a long distance while moving at high speeds and trying not to crash. For that matter, there should probably be more kept on the Gardner Island hypothesis summary, as it's at least vaguely possible, unlike the Japanese capture hypothesis. Anyway, calling TIGHAR's theory some variant of "unconvincing speculation" is fine, but it's not a conspiracy theory. SnowFire (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Further comment: I also would probably be okay with moving the article to a simple Disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan and also covering the crash and sink theory (which, while it has majority support and is probably true, is still just a theory and not strictly proven yet). In general, based on experience elsewhere, spinning off an article just for "alternative" theories tends to make a crank magnet article... it's better to discuss both the mainstream theory AND the alternative hypotheses together. SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know if the entire "disappearance" article is going on the new article (let's say, the paragraphs/sections from "Departure from Lae" to "Contemporaneous search efforts", but it could possibly be able to include the July 2 take off and messages. The current "Disappearance" section detailing the crash and sink official conclusion could be moved too as its length is so long it needs some concision. I have also included/moved views of Earhart's stepson the late George Palmer Putnam Jr as he seemed to accept the crash and sink theory but didn't dismiss the Gardner Island theory, which is a honest reaction. 80.43.251.32 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that her Electra plane has been discovered and sometime in the next 6 months this will be confirmed. For this reason I don't see much point in moving any of the "crash and sink" discussion to the speculation article, it'll just have to get deleted. Of course this may not be the case, if you or anyone else wants to move it, go ahead. Desertarun (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Too long?

Having been following the recent news, I do feel as if the Earhart article could use some clearing up to simplify the length or descriptions of events. The description of the main image is superfluous, saying "Earhart beneath the nose of her Lockheed Model 10-E Electra, March 1937 in Oakland, California, before departing on her final round-the-world attempt prior to her disappearance"; the words "before departing on her final round-the-world attempt prior to her disappearance" could be omitted as it would be very clear when the photo was taken and doesn't necessary relate to the vanishing as that was months away. The words "It is generally presumed that she and Noonan died somewhere in the Pacific during the circumnavigation, just three weeks prior to her fortieth birthday" are an odd placement to me, as in the event any of the theories (crash and sink or Gardner island castaway) are ever confirmed, it could be misleading, particularly if for the sake of argument, it is the castaway theory that is confirmed, it possible she would have lived to have seen her 40th birthday, if she had survived on Gardner for some time before perishing. Speaking of which, there is a possible article that could be used for the recent sonar discovery in which David Jourdan (himself a crash and sink theorist) cautions, "It is impossible to identify anything from a sonar image alone as sound can be tricky and the artifact could be damaged in unpredictable ways altering its shape. For that reason, you can never say that something is (or isn’t) from a sonar image alone, 92.17.199.182 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The castaway theory is not supported by enough impartial observers to be honored in the way that you describe. By far the major theory is crash and sink, which is the main backbone of this biography. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Physics and Society

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jack1231344 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sschriber.

— Assignment last updated by Tmzyang (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Poor Video

The video captioned "Newsreel of Earhart flying the Atlantic Ocean in 1932" is actually about her trip from Hawaii to California. Also, the video itself seems to partially looped. 35.137.220.224 (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone already fixed the caption. It seems the confusion arose because the video file itself was misnamed in Commons. I've fixed the issue, so hopefully that prevents further confusion. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

GOCE c/e notes

(originally left at Desertarun's talk page):

Hi all, I've now finished my copy-edit. I've marked passages in various sections with [citation needed] where I thought a citation was required. I've also marked one subsection, "World flight in 1937" --> "Flight between Lae and Howland Island" with {{Refimprove}} because some important text, mostly about RDF and radio communications, there is uncited. I also substantially rearranged the sections "Legacy" and "In Popular Culture", and retitled a couple of earlier subsections.

I think some other paragraphs could be moved into a "Personal life" section, particularly that about Earhart's marriage and move to California, to avoid mixing her flying career with her personal life. I also considered merging the transatlantic flight and the round-the-world flight into the section "Aviation career and marriage" but there's so much material there I didn't want to swamp it. And I wasn't sure about listifying the new subsection "Legacy" --> "Tributes and memorials" because some of the text there is extensive. Maybe you or another editor could find a better way of divide up and present the text for our readers.

Oh, and I swapped the footnotes system from {{refn}} to {{efn}} because the latter works will all formats of citations; I found problems when trying to move a lengthy quotation cited with a bare ref out of "References" into "Notes". The only difference if that the footnotes are now listed by letter not number. Moving to a single citation style would be ideal and make life easier for future editors but that's a lot of work so it's not a request, just a suggestion for later on. Anyway, it's been an honor to work on this article. Cheers and good luck with it, Baffle☿gab 06:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC).