Talk:TIGHAR

Unscintillating,

I have deleted the second entry in “further reading” because it was unrelated to TIGHAR. It only seemed to reflect Clinton’s opinion of Earhart.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk • contribs) 2013-06-10T13:44:41 (UTC)

Ask yourself, "Why did Clinton give the speech?". The answer is that without TIGHAR, the speech would not exist. The more complete point is that there is a section yet to be written in this article about the event as a whole. I have discussed this previously at Talk:Amelia Earhart. Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself "What does Clinton’s opinion of Earhart have to do with aviation archaeology?” The answer is DIDDLY SQUAT! The more complete point is that the purpose of the further reading section is to give the reader additional sources of information about TIGHAR, and not to subject them to a politician’s gum-flapping.

Clinton’s endorsement of “Niku VII” is really only a footnote in TIGHAR’s history anyway, so there’s no need to belabor the point.

Also, you know perfectly well that Earhart’s talk page is for Earhart, and TIGHAR’s talk page is for TIGHAR. So we’ll have none of this “I have discussed this previously at Talk:Amelia Earhar” crap.