Talk:Amelia Earhart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nominee Amelia Earhart was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 30, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

CNE[edit]

It's the Canadian National Exhibition, not Exposition. John FitzGerald (talk)

So I finally fixed it.John FitzGerald (talk)

1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques[edit]

Check this. Richard Jantz in a 2018 article evaluated Hoodless's methods and compares the Nikumaroro bones with an estimation of Amelia Earhart's bone lengths to conclude that Earhart is more similar to the Nikumarro bones than 99% of individuals in a large reference sample. Richard L. Jantz, (Early View) Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques, Forensic Anthropology Vol. 1, No. 2: 1–16 DOI 10.5744/fa.2018.0009

Tip: Click the PDF link on the summary page view the complete article. --Catrachos (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The conclusion of the analysis is based on estimated arm measurements from surviving photographs of Earhart. These estimates were created by Tighar's photoanalyst who has a long history of making claims favorable to Tighar's position. In this case, Tighar has not contracted any independent third-party to perform the analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.39.10.47 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Category:American icons, Category:Female icons. -Inowen (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request / March 2018[edit]

In the "Gardner Island hypothesis" section, remove the Daily Fail reference (no. 215) - it jumps to a conclusion in the title and it's otherwise not a very reliable source. Also, this is a clear case of cite overkill and we probably need to remove some, so let's start with the least reliable one. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 DoneAmmarpad (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Whooaaa! Not settled.[edit]

In the "Gardner Island hypothesis" section someone added the statement, "He concluded that the bones are the remains of Earhart." Having read the scientific article, I don't think that was the conclusion. The 2018 Jantz article concluded that based on the methodologies of the investigation, the bones matched those of Amelia Earhart's better than 99% of a sample group. The subsequently cited Chicago Times article was a journalist's account of the Jantz article. As journalists have to sell papers, it went for the good title but if you read beyond the title, the Chicago Times article, in an example of good science journalism, accurately captures the scientific nuances of the 2018 Jantz article. And these aren't "that the bones are the remains of Earhart." The sampling methodologies, assumptions, and conclusions still have to stand up to review by other researchers, and be collaborated by all available and future evidence, the best of which would be finding the plane on the sea floor around Gardner Island. Meanwhile, as intriguing as the hypothesis and evidence are, as far as I can tell, the "Gardner Island hypothesis" is still just that. It doesn't appear to have met scientific criteria that define "scientific fact." For instance, I'd at least want to hear from the researchers who came to different conclusions in the earlier cited studies. If the hypothesis is correct, researchers will eventually find the Lockheed Model 10-E Electra on the sea floor, and that hasn't happened yet. I'm not saying that won't happen nor would I be any less pleased than anyone else, but the Wikipedia account shouldn't get ahead of the actual investigation. That doesn't serve anyone. --Catrachos (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I would attenuate or delete the Jantz content. We don't have the bones, and Jantz is a primary source. I don't see a lot of medical sources saying they are Earhart's bones (and the forensic community could only say consistent with); we should not give one researcher a lot of weight/WP:UNDUE. Especially when so much speculation is involved. I'm also leery of the paper's connection to TIGHAR and the comparison set. We, as editors, may not evaluate the sources one way or the other. Bones were found on the island; they were forwarded with the belief they might be Earhart's; a medical examiner at the time thought they weren't; since then, there's been some controversy. No secondary source has weighed in, so We don't need to say more. Glrx (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this stance. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2018[edit]

She disappeared and that's official. Other than that, we don't know anything, so don't act like we do with the whole "dead in absentia" nonsense. Just stick to the facts. 2601:150:4001:7D0:195F:96E7:F6A0:D919 (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What exactly do you want changed and what to? clpo13(talk) 06:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done death in absentia was legally declared by the court, that is a "fact", and is what the article states. We can't over-rule a court decision, and it is important that we state it, rather than pretend otherwise. - Arjayay (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)