Talk:Amelia Earhart

Amelia Earhart Did Not Crash and Sink at Howland Island According to Waitt Industries

Waitt Industries just finished a detailed underwater search for Earhart's Electra in the vicinity of Howland Island. This search combined with the Nauticos search several years proves beyond any question Earhart did not crash in the sea at Howland irrespective of the movie "Amelia" and the two TV specials several years ago. The Waitt Industries search was very thorough and had no budget limitations. This search also negates the Elgen Long book and the Susan Butler which claim Earhart crashed and sank at Howland Island. For the real story of the Earhart loss read "The Lost Flight of Amelia Earhart" available on this website.

SAN DIEGO, Jan. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Waitt Institute for Discovery (http://wid.waittinstitute.org), a non-profit research organization established by Ted Waitt, founder and former Chairman of Gateway, Inc., has launched its new Search for Amelia Web site (http://searchforamelia.org). Created to publish the full results from the Institute's 2009 search for Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra, the site is also a gateway for information on Earhart's life and legacy. Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, disappeared without a trace near Howland Island in the Pacific during Amelia's 1937 attempt to fly around the world.

The Waitt Institute's recent expedition to find Earhart's plane, known as CATALYST 2, was a collaboration with Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute (HBOI) and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). The area surveyed was based on extensive research completed by a team of experienced air accident investigators. The initial search area was a 2,500-square-mile box -- an area equivalent to the state of Delaware -- located off the western shores of Howland Island. The Research Report is available on the site. The search area was 1,100 miles, approximately four days travel for HBOI's Research Vessel Seward Johnson, north of our base of operations in Pago Pago, American Samoa. The Research Report is available on the site. The search area was 1,100 miles, approximately four days travel for HBOI's Research Vessel Seward Johnson, north of our base of operations in Pago Pago, American Samoa.

The mission covered 7,000 linear miles of ocean floor, generating a 2,200-square-mile mosaic, at an average depth of 5,200 meters using a pair of cutting-edge REMUS 6000 Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). The most sophisticated deep-sea search vehicles available today, these AUVs are pre-programmed to operate independently once released from the support ship. When the vehicles reach their planned depth, about three miles beneath the surface, they begin flying over the ocean bottom at an average speed of 3.5 knots using side scan sonar to capture a swath of sonar imagery at least 1,200 meters.

The vehicles feature a pencil-beam automatic sonar collision-avoidance system to allow them to operate in rugged underwater terrain. They also have an exceptional degree of navigational accuracy. Once a target is found in the sonar data, the vehicles are then re-programmed to return to the coordinates of the target, do a higher resolution sonar pass deeper and closer to the object, and then a conduct a high resolution photo shoot of the object. Nimble and highly efficient, the Waitt Institute's AUVs are truly revolutionary in the world of underwater search. Waitt said, "Our AUVs were able to efficiently search a massive area and then re-acquire, re-image and clearly photograph very small targets including a pipe, a chain, rock formations, a metal drum and even a six-inch-wide cable, well over three miles below the ocean's surface.

We've mapped geology no one has ever seen, and we now know far more about what lies beneath the waves in the North Pacific today than we did yesterday. This work will hopefully not only benefit explorers, but also oceanographers, geologists, biologists and others in the science community." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beardov (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent and ingeneous work by Waitt Industries, when repeating the operation over the "right" quadrant, the discovery of the aircraft will very probably be close.Desertfax (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax Desertfax (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw the impressing and accurate results. However, the region of research was too much south of a point [with a circle of uncertainty , of course] which has been thouroughly recomputed as shown in European Journal of Navigation, July 2008 issue [also mentioned elsewhere on the discussion pages], by quantitative inquiry. The landing zone of aircraft was about 177 deg 19'W. - 01 deg 49'N. These coordinates are 85 mls off Howland Island to compass point 326 , 126 mls north of the equator, 186 mls east of the Greenwich lower meridian. Expectedly, diving at a defined point gives better opportunity than working at random by covering very large surfaces.Desertfax (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax

If the aircraft has not been found in the search area of the immediate vicinity [50 X 50 sq.mls] of the island, i.e. the wreckage has not run into range of the robot instruments, it means that it was outside the grid. If the grid is wrong, the aircraft's remains [engines, tires, landing gear, copper parts, some alclad, plexiglass, wing spars, chronometers] are still there.Desertfax (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax

The sweeping statement made at the outset is belied by the actual data and report which does not claim any of the previous researchers' hypothesis and theories are wrong. The search area, as mentioned above, may be the questionable aspect of the investigation. FWiW, I have not seen any claims from Long or Butler that Earhart crashed on Howland; that is easily disproved, however, the surrounding ocean has certainly not been completely plumbed. Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

With the search method now available : trace and go through a 6 X 15 sq.st.miles quadrant with centre 177 deg 19'.0 - W / 01 deg 49'.0 - N and there will be a reasonable chance for the aircraft to run into range of your sonar detector. calculation on request.Desertfax (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax.Desertfax (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the plane's airframe has corroded into little pieces in the seawater and only the engines are still intact? It's been more than seventy years after all. FWiW 67.170.215.166 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

At the depths one might expect in these waters, the degree of preservation is probably quite substantial. However by definition (no discovery) the search areas so far have been wrong. The data can be interpreted many ways, hence the controversy and lack of findings so far, but the general gist is that Amelia and Fred were at one point so close to Howland that their signal was very loud and clear, and then subsequently they were farther away and running north-south. Now this is not rocket science... the plane is clearly to the south of Howland and won't be found by looking anyplace else. (204.112.67.155 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Letter to Fred Goerner from Marine Corps General Verifies Earhart Capture by the Japanese

5. Letter from General A. Vandergrift

RE: Request for photocopies Date: 9/24/2007 10:01:16 AM Central Daylight Time From: Nimitz Museum Reply To: Carol Dow, Dallas

Note: “This letter supplied by the Fred Goerner Collection at the Nimitz Museum, Fredricksburg, Texas, under the Provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.”

August 10, 1971 Frederick Goerner 25 Presidio Terrace San Francisco, Calif.

Dear Mr. Goerner: Please pardon my delay answering your letter of June. I have been in the hospital and have not been too well since my return. In writing to you, I did not realize that you wanted to quote my remarks about Miss Earhart, and I would rather that you would not.

General Tommy Watson who commanded the 2nd Marine Division during the assault on Saipan and stayed on that island after the fall of Okinawa, on one of my seven visits of inspection of his division told me that Miss Earhart met her death on Saipan. That is the total knowledge I have of this incident. Having known General Watson many years, I naturally accepted this information as being correct. General Watson, I am sorry to say, died some years ago and therefore cannot be contacted.

I am sorry if my remarks mislead you but I cannot add anything more to this report.

Most sincerely, /s/ A.A. Vandergrift General USMC (Ret.) 720 ElDorado Lane Delray Beach, Florida —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beardov (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

General Vandergrift evidently reacted from hearsay. The so called Saipan Theory has zero relevancy and it is, like the "Gardner Theory" redundant to mention in serious inquiry attempts.Desertfax (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Accepting a second-hand source with no verification began a parade of other so-called witnesses, none of whom has produced a scintilla of evidence. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not by witnesses but by algebraics  : there is hard evidence that the aircraft was over 04 deg 33'.5 S - 159 deg 07'.0 E at 0719:30 hrs GMT [hence : out of reach for Saipan, from Lae 3561 mls]. Calculation on request. Desertfax (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax.Desertfax (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Desertfax (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax.Desertfax (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Desertfax (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Saipan is DUE NORTH of Lae, New Guinea (AE's departure point for the Pacific crossing) and she was flying to the EAST in the general direction of Howland Island. So unless one supposes that both AE and FN were so stupid with navigation that they couldn't tell North from East (which is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE -- FN was a PROFESSIONAL NAVIGATOR, and AE had made a whole bunch of successful long-distance flights that ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED accurate navigation), there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they could've ended up on Saipan when flying toward Howland. Clear skies to you 67.170.215.166 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

TIGHAR coverage in Discovery magazine

Several of us have been deleting a new addition to the article, one which said "by 2010 TIGHAR had found evidence that Earhart might have spent months on Nikumaroro as a castaway." This conjecture is very weak, and does not belong in the article. Gwen Gale writes in an edit summary that "sourced conjecture, like the crash and sink theory, is very much allowed", but I must add that every bit of 'allowed' text must also pass through a consensus of editors who gauge its relevance and importance. We cannot make the Earhart article an organ of TIGHAR's musings—we must wait until they actually have something worth reporting. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here at Gwen Gale's talk page collection, Bzuk and she discussed the Discovery coverage contained in the article "Amelia Earhart May Have Survived Months as Castaway". Gale accused Bzuk of "wanton" PoV-pushing in the removal of this thin conjecture. On the contrary, I think it is POV-pushing to put extremely weak conjecture into the article, for the apparent purpose of keeping TIGHAR's activities in the foreground. This article is not the bulletin board for TIGHAR; it is the encyclopedia entry about Earhart. What we put here is the major evidence, the most prominent theories, everything that has been vetted by experts or has become notable from its coverage. An article such as the recent Discovery one which offers no substance is not important enough to include here. Let us stop pushing the non-neutral point of view that TIGHAR is important to Earhart when it is the other way around. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a long time and I am familiar with TIGHAR's explorations, etc. I've never had the impression that the use of TIGHAR's findings are there to support or push TIGHAR. Their expedition did uncover evidence that is consistent with Earhart being on that island. The heel remnant, the glass that fits a woman's compact of that era that she had with her, the curvature of the plexiglass that would match to the Electra, etc., do suggest that Earhart made a landing on Gardner Island and survived for a time. In addition, the triangulation of the continuing radio signals that were still being received by the Navy, suggests that she landed on Gardner/Nikumaroro safely with the gear down. In order to keep generating a signal, the propellers would have to be able to turn in order to replenish the battery/radio, etc., and that means the props would have to clear the ground. So the gear would have to be intact, which suggests a safe landing. These don't seem to me to be 'thin conjecture.'

I don't see any problem with Gwen Gale's edit, nor does it appear that she, or anybody I can see, is trying to push TIGHAR. Their's seems to be real evidence. Also, bones were found there, and the original pathology report suggested (later after a second look) they were a female's bones. And I don't see any sources that suggest another pilot was lost in the area at that time who might have left behind evidence of survival consistent with what matches what Earhart had with her at the time of flight.Malke2010 18:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No evidence was found linking Earhart to a campsite, just 100 samples were collected, some of which will be tested for DNA. The original pathology report is from 1940 and has long since been disputed because the bones have disappeared. None, I repeat none of TIGHAR's finds have been conclusively linked to Earhart. Who knows what the finds will reveal? So far, nothing with the very suspect radio signals simply another conjecture. Using Occam's razor as a basis, the simplest theory is she was lost, ran out of fuel and ditched in the ocean. FWiW, until a conclusive find is made, the heel remnant,fragment of glass, pieece of plexiglass (?) are simple speculation, not proof. Bzuk (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like your own original research. Your uncited original research/synthesis has zero sway here. WP:V: Please restore the sourced content you blanked, cited conjecture (like the crash and sunk theory) is very much allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, very good point with Occam's Razor. I think applying Occam would hold sway if there weren't fragments of a shoe and plexiglass from an Electra, etc., as well as added to the fact that no others had gone missing in the area. Without any evidence, then yes, the simplest explanation would be lost at sea. But there is evidence that suggests survival of this particular person, and as I said, no others had been reported missing, who also had items consistent with the ones Earhart had with her. As regards the bones, finding a few bones suggests animal feeding caused the bones to be carried off. It is still possible that archaeologists, whom the TIGHAR group does use to excavate these sites, will eventually find more remains. Especially, as bones do not deteriorate like flesh.

Another way of stating Occam's Razor is 'when you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras.' Sometimes a cold is just a cold and not the Black Plague. But if the cold is contracted in an environment that supports rodents who test positive for plague, then perhaps you'll want to take a second look and run more tests. That there is evidence consistent with items that were known to be in Earhart's possession at the time of the flight, suggests to me that the zebra might be headed our way.

My main point, though, is that I do not see anybody editing to favor the TIGHAR group. And looking at the policy Gwen Gale cites, it seems to me she's on solid ground there. I don't think it hurts the article in any way to keep her edit.Malke2010 21:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

G, you may have confused the edits, although I didn't think the latest find was notable, another editor has twice blanked the submission. Bzuk (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The finds that M has described were not conclusively linked to an Electra, far from it, the plexiglass? (aluminum panel is what I recall) match was to another aircraft. (The Lockheed Electra has a definitive rivet pattern. We have one at our museum and the "Nikumaroro" underskin panel did not line up with any known Electra panels. A discovery of a panel removed after Earhart's plane was wrecked in Hawaii was matched up recently to authenticate the "Hawaii" panel. The match to the "Nikumaroro" panel was to a Consolidated PBY flying boat, not the Lockheed Electra 10E. We have the manuals for the Electra at the museum and it was clearly not at all a match according to the photos that I saw.) The shoe fragment could have belonged to anyone including other inhabitants or visitors as the island had a prior and post-Earhart history. Some areas to consider: all the preliminary sightings and radio messages show that the flight was destined for Howland with the fuel in the L10's tanks running low. Any further radio messages after the famous "We are on the line 157 337... We are running north south" cannot be authenticated. As to floating, the Electra is a notorious "sinker" with an estimated float time of only eight minutes, precluding any radio signals unless they were able to reach a landfall. The number of hoax messages in and around the date of the last Earhart flight also make any claim of post-Howland signals extremely suspect. Bzuk (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed Electra 10 is not "a notorious sinker". F.A.A archives of the era contain at least 10 on sea landings with no major structural damage, but the for all cases before sinking period never exceeded 12 minutes. This however, is typical for all medium size twin engined aircraft like Siebel 204D1, Fokker S13 and later developed Cessna types : the with regard to the light metal fuselage high mass engines pull to the nose down position immediately after coming to a standstill. Thence, the fast sinking is not of specific, but of generic configuration.Desertfax (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax

A Navy pilot made a fly-over of the island during the search and he reported signs of recent habitation on the island. However, he did not land, but he buzzed the island several times. Since nobody came out to the beach while he was there, he assumed nobody was there. Also, regarding the other findings I mentioned, you might be behind a bit on TIGHAR's research and findings. They have mentioned these on their website and they are in the videos of their expeditions. I'll try to find a video link if you are interested.Malke2010 23:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems we are discussing pre-2010 findings, not the recent trip by TIGHAR. The above-linked news item published online by Discovery is the topic of this thread, the recent June 2010 trip during which Ric Gillespie made a careful statement to Discovery with narrow conclusions based on observed evidence. He said, "there is evidence on the island suggesting that a castaway was there for weeks and possibly months". He also said, "on this expedition we have recovered nearly 100 objects", among which 10 are being tested by a Canadian lab for DNA. Does the lab have something known to be Earhart's for comparison? At any rate, Gillespie's conclusion about a castaway does not point to Earhart. Gillespie's gathering of 100 objects does not constitute evidence. Nothing new was achieved in the recent trip. Because of this lack, nothing of the trip need appear in the article here. If the Canadian DNA testing brings up a match, that will be news fit for publishing here. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit of Gwen's should be allowed to remain: [1] as it does meet this. I don't understand the conclusion that 'nothing was achieved in the recent trip.' The finding and collection of 100 items seems like a fruitful trip to me. And mitochondrial DNA can be retrieved from items people have touched. Also, comparison to DNA from a parent's remains would make a definitive match. It wouldn't have to rely on having Earhart's personal belongings. It might well help to get a another view on this from an uninvolved editor.Malke2010 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Binksternet, like Bzuk, you're posting your own uncited original research, which has no bearing here. Moreover, the source straightforwardly names Earhart. Your OR and synthesis aside, both of you are only saying you don't want readers to see the source because you don't like what it says. Please restore the sourced content you have blanked. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, G, I didn't want the statement removed merely to indicate that a castaway was possible. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

I'm not posting my original research, Gwen Gale—I'm questioning your synthesis and the weight that this news item bears in relation to our Earhart article. In the new item, TIGHAR's Gillespie never mentions Earhart... it is the article's author, Rossella Lorenzi, a non-notable staffer at Discovery News, who makes conclusions about Earhart. That means the first version of the Gwen Gale addition is a misleading synthesis of two parts into one: "By 2010 TIGHAR had found evidence that Earhart might have spent months on Nikumaroro as a castaway." TIGHAR found stuff about the possibility of castaways, Lorenzi made the leap to Earhart. We should not put Lorenzi's conclusions into a form that makes it seem TIGHAR proclaimed them. Bzuk's next modification transformed the sentence into a purely accurate one but thus made it irrelevant to our encyclopedia article about Earhart: "By 2010 TIGHAR had found evidence that a castaway may have spent months on Nikumaroro." If they are not specifically tied to Earhart, TIGHAR's findings do not belong here.

I have no problems with WP:Verifiability—I can see quite clearly that the item made it into Discovery's online news area. What I insist upon is that additions from TIGHAR have the appropriate WP:Weight in terms of the big picture, and that we do not introduce inconsequential news items just because they got published. When and if somebody electrifies the world by showing a major new clue about Earhart's disappearance, we will have something juicy to add. Periodic updates about TIGHAR's activities saying that some collected objects are being tested, the update filled with conjecture by one journalist? We don't need that trivia. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT does not say verifiable content cited to a reliable source can be blanked by an editor because it doesn't fit that editor's own notion of "the big picture." As for an editor saying they "insist" on any editorial content (or lack) here, that sounds a lot more to me like tendentious editing than NPoV. One sentence echoing the conditional wording of that source in a sub-section of this very long article, which already lists 175 sources, is not undue weight.

Lastly, the source does not carry trivia written by a journalist, it carries a journalist's report about ongoing field research along with conjecture by an author whose writing on this topic has been published by the Naval Institute Press, an author whom the NIP calls "an internationally recognized authority on the Earhart disappearance." Keep in mind, Elgin Long's published outlook on this topic is also wholly conjecture. It's allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views." An expedition that did not recover world-class evidence falls through the cracks as unimportant. We do not need to give TIGHAR more coverage than they had previously, especially since nothing major was determined (so far) on the 2010 expedition. Let's wait until the Canadian lab finds a DNA match to trumpet the findings. I am not a tendentious editor; I have added quite a lot of solid, cited text to various articles, and I have kept trivia from many more. You should know better than to argue that a small addition to a over-large article is not undue weight—it is unimportant non-news that should not be allowed to make the article even larger. It is wholly unnecessary.

Regarding authority in the news item: the story carries no conjecture by Gillespie, your recognized authority. Gillespie is much more careful than that in the quoted bits. All the conjecture is by Lorenzi, the staffer at Discovery News.

Once again, text that is 'allowed' is not text that should automatically be included here. We look at WP:V and WP:NPOV and we determine how relevant the text is to the article. We see that we are directed to represent "all significant views fairly and proportionately" and so we turn to the sources and weigh them. All of us do this, but we arrive at differing conclusions. I weigh a low-content news item such as the recent one from TIGHAR and it comes up woefully short—Gwen Gale weighs it and it seems vital to the article. The next step is to determine editor consensus. Is it time for a RfC? Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your description of the source is more or less wholly mistaken, as is your description of my posts. As to the topic, you have cited only your original research and opinions, which straightforwardly show that you don't like what the source says and nothing more. Terms such as world-class, solid, trivia (note the 4th item in the example list of the wlink) and non-news are so fuzzy as to be meaningless polemic rhetoric with no hooks into policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the choice of "more or less wholly mistaken" I'd choose less. No hooks into policy? WP:V does not require the inclusion of a verifiable bit, and WP:NPOV directs us against disproportionate action, giving too much 'ink' to minor viewpoints. There are my hooks. If you would like to cut my opinion down as original research, show your work—I have conducted no original research here. Better yet, show the recent TIGHAR expedition to have found Earhart-worthy clues rather than the almost 100 as-yet-unclassified items they picked up for further analysis and the impressions they took away from the island. I will fully support a TIGHAR news item brought here to this article if the item connects Earhart conclusively to a discovered object. DNA test results would qualify as such. Until then, we remain silent, waiting. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See the dicdef of this idiom, 11b. Meanwhile you've only posted loops of your own original research and opinions on the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I see a lot of unnecessary detail on TIGHAR's activities. The list of trades on the expedition could be described as multi-disciplinary rather than listing occupations. Perhaps it would be better to focus the description of TIGHAR's involvement in terms of how long it has been working on the subject rather than a single expedition of theirs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not waste your time and do not dissipate your energy for useless conjecture : it has since long been approved that the aircraft would have never succeeded to reach Gardner with the gasoline on board available. Even DNA does not exist on places where somebody has not been, which in itself cannot be delivered hard evidence of, since negativa non sunt probanda.Desertfax (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)desertfax

Instead of uncited original research, here's more from news.discovery.com. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting photos. Looks like more bones have been recovered.Malke2010 04:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Typical Tighar nonsense, sheer phantasy , created to hoodwink credulity victims. Citation of no use either for archive and publication, or for progress of history ; poor quality ladies novel.Desertfax (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC).Desertfax (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your uncited original research has no sway on en.Wikipedia, Desertfax. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It so seems : citing phantom stories takes precedence of the in point of fact stage, for certain contributors. Desertfax (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Desertfax (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

suggested TIGHAR edit

"Several press outlets have reported that TIGHAR believes they have discovered evidence that Amelia Earhart may have landed on Gardner Island, now Nikumararo."[2][3][4][5]

It's alright to use secondary sources to support what TIGHAR believes. They're not claiming absolutely they've proven she landed on Gardner Island, they're saying they believe they've found evidence that suggests it, their claim is being reported in reliable sources. This is within Wikipedia's guidelines and it is noteworthy.Malke2010 20:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but we already have that. We have:

The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) has suggested Earhart and Noonan may have flown without further radio transmissions for two-and-a-half hours along the line of position Earhart noted in her last transmission received at Howland, arrived at then-uninhabited Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro) in the Phoenix group, landed on an extensive reef flat near the wreck of a large freighter and ultimately perished.
TIGHAR's research has produced a range of documented archaeological and anecdotal evidence supporting this hypothesis.

Why do we need more than that? Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the problem with the suggested edit: TIGHAR did not find any evidence that links to Earhart in this or any other expedition. Just because they believe that have "evidence" doesn't make it so... FWiW, here's a suggestion: TIGHAR continues to look for evidence that Earhart may have landed on Gardner/Nikumaroro, but that has already been said a number of times, so is this anything really new? Bzuk (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to keep sourced content out of the article by citing your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk, I see your points but I don't think they (TIGHAR) have to first prove the items belong to Earhart before they can hypothesize it was her. I think it's okay to say that while there is not proof yet that they are her items, the items are consistent with those Earhart was known to have in her possession, such as the pocket knife, etc. And by extension, I don't think we have to wait for proof before we can add the hypothesis to the article. It's sourced by reliable sources and meets the standard for inclusion.Malke2010 21:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk, I guessing that you've already seen the news report about the reporter's notebook and that the reporter was on the Itasca at the time and recorded his observations. I could find the link again, if you have not. But it also mentions the bit about the bones, etc. It's from 2007, but it's fairly comprehensive and it is a reliable source.Malke2010 21:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

G and M, On the contrary, I had made a number of revisions to try to keep the original edit in place, feeling that the title of the article clearly indicated the belief that the author of the article had that Earhart could have been the castaway on Nikumaroro. Other editor(s) challenged or changed the edit further. I have read and re-read the article numerous times and I can't see the leap-of-faith/logic that actually makes the discovery of a campsite link to Earhart as the reputed castaway. Gillespie doesn't make that claim; however, if the DNA results come back as positive, then there is a story here. Right now, it appears to be another of the "what if" accounts. FWiW, if guesses are in order, then why not some other person belonging to the items that were discovered? Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your original research has nothing to do with what the source says. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I respectfully say that the mention lacks notability. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability is shown through coverage by independent sources, which the citations do, very straightforwardly. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability and verifiability of the news item do not require us to put it into the article. We take a look at all of our sources and we decide what is important. I say the news item is not important enough. Until a new announcement is made regarding DNA, TIGHAR's basic theme remains unchanged; that they have some artifacts and that they have made observations, all being circumstantial evidence. There is no need to restate this position following their June 2010 news item. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand the opposition. It's a simple edit that Earhart might have made it to Gardner Island and there is evidence of a survivor that might have been her. There are reliable sources and it is noteworthy as her disappearance is one of the great mysteries in 20th century world history, not just American history. TIGHAR is not claiming it was Earhart, the claim is that it might have been and they have items similiar to items she was known to have in her possession. The bone handled knife, etc. It doesn't have to claim it was her knife. It just shows it's possible. The reliable sources are there. There's no reason to keep it out of the article, as something like that is noteworthy.Malke2010 23:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What about asking for an RfC?Malke2010 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a trivial issue that probably doesn't warrant an intensive review. Typically, reaching consensus between interested parties is what is required and if you traverse back through the "string" above, there is no consensus for including the latest information on a TIGHAR expedition. FWiW, by implying that the "castaway" was Earhart without solid evidence to support this claim, is merely supposition on the writer's part, and makes the entire report she wrote, tantamount to speculative journalism. Bzuk (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not trivial. Moreover, as I said before, you're wholly mistaken as to who is making the claim in that source. Lastly, sourced speculation is allowed, such as the whole section on the "crashed and sank" theory, sourced speculation. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a valid Wikipedia policy reason for excluding this edit. It seems to me it's really this. And that's not a reason.Malke2010 12:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this one: Wikipedia is not a news source. FWiW, especially when it is a repetition of earlier reports. Bzuk (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. "Routine reporting" is what we saw in June 2010, not a major development. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we have no obligation to repost routine updates that do not change the basic article information. Binksternet (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with either of these arguments. It's just what this guy has found that suggests this particular person has gone missing in this location. It's sourced, it's a verifiable statement. The objection is so strenuous, it can't just be a concern over this.Malke2010 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Make of it what you will, but the end result, after many column-inches of digital space have been used to debate the topic, is that the article about Earhart does not need this June 2010 TIGHAR information. It adds nothing not already present. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, except it doesn't mention that Gillespie thinks he's found items that suggest the survivor could have been Earhart. :) Malke2010 16:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The journalist makes the supposition, although it is likely a "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" account by Gillespie that suggests Earhart is the castaway. The find was a campsite, believed to be used in the past. How this jumps to being Earhart being marooned on the island as a castaway is entirely "blue sky" deduction. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying for sure it was her, he's saying it could have been. Also, Bzuk, I think you have good points and you're a good editor, and if you were missing in the Pacific, I'd make them turn over every rock on Gardner Island looking for you. And if they found a pocketknife like yours, I'd say, "Look, it could have been Bzuk!" And I'd make them put that in your Wikipedia article. Just wanted you to know.Malke2010 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If by "he" you mean Gillespie, he's not saying anything of the kind. The most he may be doing is leading the news reporter to make that assumption. He steers clear of saying the castaway might have been Earhart. Read it again like a hawk, and you'll see how Gillespie's quoted comments do not mention Earhart. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing archives

Hello everyone, I've just noticed that only the archive entries dated from December '05 to September '07 are accessible from the archive box -- all those made afterwards have disappeared into the wild blue yonder just like that Electra 10-E. Does anyone have any idea of what happened to all those entries (quite a bunch as far as I can remember), and whether there's any way to find and retrieve them so they can be properly archived? 67.170.215.166 (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One potentially valuable clue I've just found: the links to archive pages #11 and #12 both point to archive page #11. FWIW 67.170.215.166 (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it myself. (Yes! I'm invincibel!)  :-) 67.170.215.166 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

internal link suggestion

1937 world flight
"Not the first to circle the globe, it would be the longest at 29,000 miles (47,000 km), following a grueling equatorial route."

• "Not the first to circle the globe"

This is on topic and saves people having to dig for it.
24.78.167.139 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Nelson and Smith also deserve to be honored as the pioneer aviators that they were. Even though they didn't become as famous as Lindbergh or Earhart (for a simple reason -- they didn't make as many pioneering flights), the one "first" that they did make was a very important achievement in the history of aviation, and deserves to be recognized as such. Clear skies to you 67.170.215.166 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: When I said "Smith", I meant Lowell Smith, not Charles Kingsford-Smith (although the latter was also a great aviation pioneer worthy of recognition). Clear skies to you 67.170.215.166 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit requested}} Please add "{{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1937}}" after the template already at the end of the article. 212.84.100.119 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. This request has been completed. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Date error?

In the section "Early flying experiences", it says that Amelia went on a flight on December 28, 1920 and began saving up for flying lessons. It then says that when she reached $1000, she took her first lesson, on January 3, 1921. That's only six days; could she really have gotten several jobs and worked to reach $1000 in just six days? That seems to be a mistake... Oxguy3^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The money actually came in the form of a loan from her mother. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC).

reference to in media ( tv series )

In the sci fi tv series Babylon 5 written by michael j> strycinski (sic?) the bar the command staff hangs out in after hours s called Earhardt's. 95.170.209.139 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Kilroy4303

A single mention in an episode or even a passing mention in a TV series is not considered notable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And hello, Bzuk.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why would amelia earhart cross the pacific? Isnt the distance a bit far from the common stop offs with feul? Could this be added to the conspiracy theory. Loss of feul? Or a very inexperienced individuals with a couple in a time when noone really cared. No antenna on plane. IDK. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article for answers to your questions. This talk page is not a forum, it is used as a means to develop the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible finger bone

I removed a news item in which publicity-hungry TIGHAR reports to MSNBC that they have a couple of bone fragments which could be human. Must be a slow day at the news factory... Ric Gillespie says "At first we assumed it was from the turtle whose remains we found nearby. Indeed, sea turtles have finger bones in their flippers. But further research suggests it could also be human." Gillespie has no idea yet whether the bone is turtle or human or whatever, let alone the finger bone of Earhart. Gillespie says "We know that none of the hand bones of the castaway were found in 1940. Could that bone be a human finger?" Deeper in the article it says:

"Forensic anthropologist Karen Ramey Burns, a specialist in the identification of human remains, examined the phalanx. She could not say with certainty that it was or was not human ... The mystery will be soon solved when the finger bone is examined at the Molecular Science Laboratories at Oklahoma University."

This supposed news item is another puff piece PR bit more about TIGHAR than Earhart. It does not belong here in this article at all. Even if an independent test lab confirms that it is a human bone, they cannot confirm it was Earhart's. Until the test results are reported on and commented on, this news item is premature. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your original research and PoV driven dislike of the content have no sway on WP:V. The source is reliable and citing it is only helpful to readers who come here seeking knowledge about the sources to be had on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're predictable, Gwen, that much I can say. We had the same conversation last June about TIGHAR. You quoted OR and V back then, too, but the upshot was that the article did not need any of TIGHAR's lame news items unless the basic truth about Earhart is changed. In this case, as before, the Earhart truth is not yet changed. You ought to consider writing an article about TIGHAR so that their public relations output can have a possible home, if the news can be shown to be important to TIGHAR. However, this news item is not important in any way to Earhart. It is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as was the similar PR piece back in June. We here have no responsibility to help TIGHAR obtain fame or funding; our mission is to tell the reader as much about Earhart as is known. Once the test results come back from Oklahoma, we will see what kind of news item this may be. Until then, no dice. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet your edit summary says the content is "non-news," whilst you cite a policy about putting "news" in an article. This is highly misleading to editors. Moreover, you are now commenting on another editor, and that's a personal attack. Lastly, you have edit warred to the very brink of WP:3rr. No matter how much you don't like sourced content, there are no exceptions to 3rr for good faith edits and I have left a warning on your talk page. Please revert your harmful edit warring and let other editors have their say here. Talk page consensus is how things are done here, whether or not you or I like how that consensus may go. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just picking this up on my watchlist, I am apparently still watching the talkpage of user binksternet. Anyway, surely this is news and it is a lot better to wait for the result than remove it as not of any value , it seems bit like a dispute at the Assange BLP today, he is looking like he might be winning time mag man of the year and users wanted to add it, but it is only actually noteworthy if and when he actually wins, so we kept it out. Do you really want to add that a bone fragment was found on a mountain and it was taken for dna testing but it had nothing to do with Earhart.Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody found anything on a mountain, I guess you didn't read the deleted, sourced content. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I wouldn't comment without looking at the text, wherever it was found the same applies, I had the idea the place was some mountain. - Nikumaroro - its an island but my personal opinion as to the inclusion of the content in regards to guidelines is unchanged.Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to mistake mountain for atoll. I would think the same carelessness in reading the edit may have carried forward to your take on policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't come here to be insulted, sorry if you need to be like that because you don't like my comment, thanks, enjoy yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment was careless. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, to comment on "PoV driven dislike", above. The criticism seems a little unfair, given that the contributor was referring to the specific WP policy of WP:NOTNEWS, not adding an off-the-cuff opinion of his/her own. WP:NOTNEWS seems very relevant. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen's comment "PoV driven dislike" has some historical basis. If you look through the talk archives I yield not an inch to unnecessary TIGHAR publicity; I make plain that I think they are self-serving rather than truth-serving. Here in this thread I wrote "publicity-hungry TIGHAR", which is enough to raise a TIGHAR fan's hackles. Gwen's history through these talk pages is very TIGHAR friendly, so we are on opposite sides of that divide. Both of us hold a point of view on the topic. Nonetheless, we have both been able to edit beyond our biases and work together to make this article a good example of reliability and verifiability on Wikipedia—a difficult proposition considering all the theories out there about what happened to her. I feel confident we can all work together to judge this new bit from MSNBC.

The guideline at WP:NOTNEWS keeps coming up on this talk page because TIGHAR keeps putting out press releases with conjecture about Earhart. My stance relative to this article is that none of the press releases should be mentioned here unless they absolutely change the facts of Earhart's fate. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur that unless a definitive statement is made, conjecture or speculation about possible finds should not have much weight, coming from a former TIGHAR member, no less... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

The pith of my worry is the quick edit warring, to the edge of 3rr, over good faith edits, much as if they were vandalism. As to the source, it's in no way a press release, it's independent coverage from MSNBC. As for published and verified conjecture and speculation, it's drawn from a wide body of archaeological and archival evidence upon which MSNBC published an article, as have other sources. Never mind that speculation and conjecture are always key steps in any area of research. The sloppy and careless commentary in edit summaries and on this talk page as to "non-news" having anything to do with WP:NOTNEWS, "puff-pieces," things found on "mountains" and so on speaks for itself and only stalls the sharing of meaningful thought and consensus. Lastly, nothing will ever change the facts of AE and FN's fate, any research into which has to do with learning those facts, whatever they may be and coverage of which is notable to this core biographical topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, given all that, what is essentially a content dispute has now been transferred to the Nikumaroro article, where the statement abut a find on the island does relate to continuous archaeological work, but again MSNBC has based the entire article on an interview with Ric Gillespie, which in no way, can be considered "independent" verification. Gillespie sprinkles his responses with "could..." "is consistent..." "how did a phalanx get there?" "suggesting..." and "there is a sufficient preponderance of circumstantial evidence..." Puleeese! I have to agree with my learned fiend, Binksternet, that this is hyperbole of the worst kind, but the reporter fell for it, hook, line and stinker. FWiW (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bzuk, your PoV is showing. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya got it, Ric just drove me batty with a litany of releases and statements that were eventually amended, withdrawn or simply disappeared, followed shortly by myself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Beware WP:BLP kindly friend, only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Pray tell, is there a Ric Gillespie article? FWiW, the goals and mission of TIGHAR are laudable, the results are....

Your original research is meaningless here, as is mine. Meanwhile, WP:BLP has sway on all project pages here, for any living person, even those without articles on en.WP. You should skive that post. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no violation of BLP against Ric Gillespie in this thread. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken as to WP:BLP, as you are mistaken about WP:Edit war. Please undo your harmful edit warring now and wait for further editor input. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think consensus is here? I think it is to keep out of this article any of TIGHAR's inconclusive conjecture. The similar June 2010 thread settled down with that result, and this thread looks to be doing the same. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Three editors (you, Bzuk and the other editor who thought the source had to do with something about a mountain) don't make a consensus. Come to think of it, two editors support the sourced content which you deleted through edit warring. Please undo your edit warring now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is more than counting heads, but if you wanted to count them, against inconclusive news reports you would find these editors: Binksternet, Bzuk, Desertfax, GraemeLeggett, Off2riorob and Old Moonraker. Editors for TIGHAR news items are Gwen Gale and Malke2010. Beyond counting heads, quoting policy and applying logic are how we develop a consensus, but your contributions in this thread are only that the news item is reliable and verifiable, which nobody doubts. You have not been able to counter the guideline at NOTNEWS which appears to be the trump, telling us to ignore unimportant news items that do not change the basic facts of this biography article.

You keep beating on the edit warring drum but I would not have reverted three times in 20 minutes if you had not reverted twice in 12 minutes. With regard to your insistence that I undo my most recent removal of the unimportant news item, I would do so if consensus here was not clear on the issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As we all know, your comments are wholly PoV driven (never mind mistaken) and you edit warred to the very edge of 3rr to further that PoV, please undo your edit warring now. Let consensus have sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do share and support the opinion that these news about TIGHAR's claims and efforts must not be included into the article about Amelia Earhart until they will be positively confirmed. The TIGHAR organization released many claims and presented many findings as if related to Earhart during last two decades but they were never positively confirmed; meanwhile numerous skeptic arguments were systematically neglected and ignored. At these condition I can't see a rational reason to transform the article (or some part of it) into the TIGHAR's "newsline", in any form. When the TIGHAR's finding will be confirmed as really related to Earhart (if ever), it would be fair and logical to include them. But not before that would happen. Just my opinion. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

No worries about your take on this, Alex, although I think it is wholly mistaken as to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. If Binksternet would undo his edit warring, then consensus here will out. As an admin, I could care less as to the outcome. As an editor, if the source isn't cited I'll only be mildly nettled, being an eventualist as to en.WP. Binksternet, if consensus supports your PoV, you can undo your policy breaching edit warring without worry. If it does not, nevertheless, edit warring is not on here. Please undo your edit warring now. My worry is with your edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just tossing in my two cents; IMHO, the TIGHAR news bit probably shouldn't have been included in the first place. But, once it was included, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for edit-warring to take it out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, a content dispute is involved here, not edit warring, and a consensus is based on all parties agreeing to a solution, rather than a nose count. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's edit warring, Binksternet edit warred to the edge of 3rr, perhaps even gaming 3rr. Hopefully, Binksternet will show that he doesn't want to edit by WP:Edit war, undo his edit warring and let other editors handle this through conesensus, whatever that may be and whatever clueless admins like me may think of it. I say that because the only meaningful reason I watchlist this article is for edit warring and vandalism, which are both highly harmful to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't there been a substantial edit made on the Nikumaroro article that details the latest find on the island? Nothing has been said that this is a verified find at this point pointing to Earhart. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

The finds are wholly verified by reliable sources as being linked with noted research as to AE and FN's fates, which one would think readers of this enyclopedia would like to know about. As an aside, I do think WP:WEIGHT supports carrying the MSNBC source here, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The finds may be verified as "finds" but that is the extent of it, all other definitive data or relationship to Earhart is subject to a forensic evaluation which had not taken place yet. The treatment at the Nikumaroro article seems to encapsulate what has been found without any other claims. FWiW, the recent edit by our esteemed fiend, Binksternet (am I saying that correctly? [LOL]) on the surface, appears to be an olive branch and a genuine effort to address the issue. Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet could do much more by undoing his edit warring here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't make this about edit warring when what you are after is a change in content. The guideline at WP:WEIGHT gives the editors here leeway to consider the MSNBC news item. We are enjoined by the guideline to represent fairly "all significant viewpoints ...in proportion to the prominence of each". The viewpoint of TIGHAR is that Earhart ended her days on Gardner. We have written about that viewpoint in the article, with proper proportion. That viewpoint has not been changed by the news item. I see no reason to re-apply the weight guideline each time a new but inconclusive announcement is made by TIGHAR. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Says the one who edit warred to the brink of 3rr. Please undo your edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Without any intention to attack or tease anybody but just for the matter of fact... The finds in dispute are not "wholly verified by reliable sources as being linked with noted research as to AE and FN's fates"; it is just a proclaimed hypothesis of the TIGHAR organization (just as many other claims of them), not a real proven fact. Please lets separate guesses from facts; it is obviously important for the article pretending to be an encyclopedic one. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Latest news

Please consider using this to help with this article. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see that happen. There has already been fairly wide coverage on this elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this Guardian article and this article from Time. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Those three linked articles are all about the same conjecture from TIGHAR discussed in the previous thread and rejected by most editors who commented on it. The news items put forward TIGHAR's conjecture about Earhart and about the possible proof by DNA. What we should be waiting for is verifiable DNA results, not speculation about what the tests may show. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The articles are about a lot more evidence than the phalanx. Meanwhile, speaking of conjecture, crashed and sunk is wholly, utterly, conjecture, with nary a shred of physical evidence. These sources and their content should be cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The theories are already given the proper weight in the article, and these new wavings of hands do not add to TIGHAR's theory that Earhart made it to Gardner and died there. Conjecture by crash-and-sinkers is based on the the evidence of absence, a difficult but established method of investigation. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's aught but your own original research, with which that article you wlinked is also riddled. Please cite sources instead, like those cited at the top of this thread, which should be put in the article. This talk page is not a forum for your personal opinions (or mine) and en.WP is not about truth, it's about verifiable sources, even those some editors don't like. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing once again all those familiar links to Wikipedia guidelines. They are helpful each time you bring them here on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Today I took out the following paragraph:

On December 14, 2010, the research group said it had found bones that appeared to be part of a human finger, as well as several artifacts including pieces of a pocket knife of the same brand as one listed in Earhart's aircraft and personal belongings of a woman, during their summer 2010 expedition. The bone fragments have been transported to the University of Oklahoma to be DNA tested.

• Ryall, Julian. "Bone found on Pacific island 'could belong to Amelia Earhart'." The Telegraph (UK), December 14, 2010. Retrieved: December 19, 2010.

Gwen Gale returned the paragraph after my removal. I think it does not belong here, as it is full of conjecture and does not change the basic TIGHAR position of Earhart reaching Gardner to die there. I will welcome a news report with something substantial, but this report is all about circumstantial evidence. It does not belong per WP:NOTNEWS. How do others feel about it? Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm of two minds since the fauxnews has become "viral" (another word to detest now...), it has been reported ad nausueum in every media source. I have now been asked countless times for my opinion, since some deluded people consider me an Earhartaphile, so my vote is mushy but keep for now and eviscerate as soon as the inevitable retracting takes place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's hoping that the lab hurries their report. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

DFC

Congress awarded her honorary Major Wings Amelia Earhart never received the Distinguished Flying CrossSourdoe (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not according to this list and citation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Aviatrix?

I have not heard this word used ever. Granted that's only anecdotal, however when I see "aviatrix" I get the impression that the emphasis is taken off the individual and placed more on the gender. Not quite sure I agree with that, as it should not matter if one is male or female when it pertains to things that are not intrinsically reliant on gender. The "aviatrix" in question would be an aviator whether they were male or female. As well, the word itself I would think would seem somewhat diminishing to women. Just sounds... off. I'm okay with how it stands now though. Jersey John (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a product of its time, and an agreement (consensus) was made to not emphasize its use but to allow its inclusion once, so as not to be PC. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's like the word actress, the latter still being very much used, but aviatrix seldom shows up in published text anymore. Since she was widely called an aviatrix back in the day, I see no harm in having the word in the text once, to echo this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly mattered back in her day that she was a female pilot—gender was very important. Consensus on aviatrix is that we call Earhart by that term one time in the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's back to twice however. Still, not really eough for me to go berserk about, hehehe. But just pointing out :) Jersey John (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes aviatrix is most appropriate; of course it does place some emphasis on her gender, but in truth isn't that a large element of her distinction in aviation at that time? And isn't it a large part of the reason we endear ourselves to her? Its easy to forget that we sometimes do this; by way of example how much attention does Fred Noonan receive? Aren't we searching the ocean for him too? (204.112.67.155 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Edit request

The first paragraph states she was the first aviator to cross the Atlantic solo; it needs to state she was the first female aviator to cross it solo.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.41.214 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See talk above about aviatrix, an editor changed the word arbitrally and therefore changed the menaing of statement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

That was a goof on my part. I didn't notice that changing "aviatrix" to "aviator" made no sense since "female" was never in there to begin with. If that makes sense. I simply changed "aviatrix" to "aviator" without regards to the qualifier of her being the first female. Goof on my part. Moreover, it's been agreed upon that "aviatrix" will stick, thus negating the need to say first FEMALE, since aviatrix does that by default. Sorry for any confusion. Jersey John (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not you, but some other editor, now changed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

WASP reference in the article

'WASP" is an acronym for 'Women Army Service Pilots', and dates from the WWII period. The US Air Force was not formed until after WWII, so the article's translation of this acronym is erroneous. Can you fix this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.108.242 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, WASP stands for Women Airforce Service Pilots and is correctly used in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Candidate Airplane Wreck

For reference only, pending further details:

• Bougainville clampdown on 'Earhart wreck' Last Updated: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:54:00 +1100
• Claims aviation pioneer Earhart's plane found in PNG - By PNG correspondent Liam Fox 2011/03/03

NevilleDNZ (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

201102 / 03 abt wreck Bougainville etc. sheer nonsense same hoax like Nikumaroro.80.56.50.56 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason that the Bougainville crash theory is not given any weight in the article—it is impossible because of fuel limitations. The Bougainville excitement shown in the recent news is sheer fantasy. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I love the speculation that there are two skulls in the cockpit, gold bullion on board and that a giant snake is guarding the wreck. You can't beat that, definitely clears up the mystery of Earhart and Noonan's disappearance. (LOL) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

I love the speculation that skull no.1 will show to be Irene Bolam´s 80.56.50.56 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No Mention of Contemporary Search Efforts in "Search Efforts" section of Main Article

Should not the main Article be developed in such manner as to include in the appropriate section some of the contemporary searches for the Earhart-Noonan plane? The present account ends with the 1937 searches and is somewhat out of date; further the recent searches have of course been far more exhaustive, extacting and advanced. These developments too are part of the story of Amelia. (Valhalan (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

What????!!! Read the section: Theories on Earhart's disappearance to see the searches documented right up to December 2010. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant, under "Search Efforts" which of course is precisely what they are. Sorry I should have been clearer. Further in the matter I note that no-one seems to have made allowances for the way in which an aircraft can sink and the extent to which they can "plane away" i.e. develop a considerable horizontal vector as they fall through the water. The Titanic's bow section actually moved horizontally something like half a mile in falling just 2.4 miles, representing a deviation from the vertical of 12 degrees; an aircraft designed to do just that, to plane as fluid rushes over the wings, could move horizontally by a far greater distance. A deviation from the vertical of 55 degrees, for example, would mean a horizontal displacement of 26,000 feet (4.9 miles) during an 18,000 feet (3.4 miles) vertical fall. This is sufficient to warrant significant changes to the parameters of a search area. (Valhalan (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

It was from the Howland region possible to fly in the direction of Gardner by compass , but not by following the 157-337 position line since such line is actually a circle segment , in this case continually turning eastwards away (and so would do a by sextant observation piloted aircaft)from the 157 compass point : in the 2 1/2 hours plus flight time the sun in orbit travels 37 1/2 degrees westwards with the belonging azimuthal change.80.56.50.56 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct. At one time, they were so close to Howland that their signal was very loud and clear. Subsequently, they were arguably less loud and clear and heading along the position line north-south. Note their probable southerly progress starting from the immediate Howland area. However they probably had insufficient fuel to reach Gardner and therefore went into the sea south of Howland.(Valhalan (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC))