Jump to content

Talk:Amelia Earhart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tuki03 (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 18 February 2015 (→Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeAmelia Earhart was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 30, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed


Lae_Airport_(Papua_New_Guinea)

Hello,

Can approved editors please include a link to Lae and specifically Lae_Airport_(Papua_New_Guinea). I have suggested the below.

I am in the process of updating the Lae and subsequent pages for Papua New Guinea and have included some more photos including the Amelia Earhart memorial Amelia_Earhart_monument.jpg

Anyone interested in PNG / German history / ww2 history / Earhart / editing - please assist and value add

Departure from Lae[edit] On July 2, 1937, midnight GMT, Earhart and Noonan took off from Lae_Airport_(Papua_New_Guinea) in Lae in the heavily loaded Electra. Their intended destination was Howland Island, a flat sliver of land 6,500 ft (2,000 m) long and 1,600 ft (500 m) wide, 10 ft (3 m) high and 2,556 miles (4,113 km) away. Their last known position report was near the Nukumanu Islands, about 800 miles (1,300 km) into the flight. The USCGC Itasca was on station at Howland, assigned to communicate with Earhart's Lockheed Electra 10E and guide them to the island once they arrived in the vicinity.

Phenss (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Palmer Putnam Jr passed away in 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.253.19 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the current airport at Lae is Nadzab. Earhart departed from the old field in town, near the wharf. It was heavily bombed during WW2, and no buildings survived. The 1930s Guinea Airways hangars were adjacent to the beach, on the west side of 14-32 runway. The town field was closed in 1994, nearly 70yrs after opening in 1926.220.244.77.97 (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the Howland Is was the destination. The nearby Baker Is had a runway and facilities maintained by the USN. It is unlikely that Howland ever had such facilities, as it's a good bit smaller and runs N-S.220.244.247.120 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Deep Water Search for the Earhart Airplane

In 1999 Dana Timmer in association Williamson & Associates conducted the first ever deep water, (in up to 18,000 feet of Pacific Ocean) sonar search for the Earhart aircraft in the vicinity of Howland Island. The search was conducted over a 30 day period and approximately 600 square miles of ocean floor was covered. Several targets were discovered which require high resolution sonar imaging which will be conducted during the upcoming mission, "ExpeditionAmelia" planned for the Fall of 2014. ~~~~ <ref>www.Expeditionamelia.com

Baker Island.

There are two islands here, the Howland and Baker Ils. Baker Is. appears to be the one that had the airfield, not Howland. There's clearly a runway and some signs of a significant facility on Baker Is. Baker is larger, and allows an for E-W runway, well suited to the prevailing Trades.~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.77.97 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howland and Baker Ils.

The article says that Howland Is was the destination. The nearby Baker Is had an E-W runway and facilities maintained by the USN. Howland Is is too small, and runs N-S. I'm not aware that Howland Is ever had any sort of facilities.~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.247.120 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference found in Howland and Baker islands:
  • "Vital islands. Baker and Howland. Lack of flora and water". Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld. : 1885 - 1954). Qld.: National Library of Australia. 19 February 1937. p. 7. Retrieved 2013-01-23. At the present time, Hawaiian boys of the Kamehameha school are maintaining the wireless station and working to clear the areas of Howland of debris to provide landing facilities for Mrs. Amelia Earhart, who is to fly to Australia. There is a possibility that they may also lay concrete runways in time for her arrival.
Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the reason the article Howland and Baker islands is named with Howland first is because Howland is the larger of the two islands.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I have added nowiki wrapping to two unclosed "ref" tags.  Several edits that had been rendered invisible are now visible.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Her Remains

Someone who feels like it, could incorporate the most recent findings.

"A fragment of Amelia Earhart's lost aircraft has been identified to a high degree of certainty for the first time ever since her plane vanished over the Pacific Ocean on July 2, 1937, in a record attempt to fly around the world at the equator." http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/aluminum-fragment-appears-to-belong-to-earharts-plane-141028.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.225.123 (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for Nikumaroro : [1] [2] It's not her bodily remains, just a metal plate. TGCP (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geez more of the Rossella Lorenzi suppositions; she is either the most naive or the silliest reporter ever assigned to the Amelia Earhart discoveries. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The metal plate's already been mentioned in the main article; I put it in there the day after it was reported. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Bzuk removed all mention of this from the main article. I undid that change (for now), as I believe we need to discuss it further. First, at minimum, the claim does need to be mentioned in the main article due to the widespread publicity it has seen - dozens if not hundreds of news outlets have published it as factual. Second, this does not seem to be a "typical" Rossella Lorenzi finding, as several groups including TIGHAR have stated the plate belonged to Earhart's Electra "with a high degree of certainty". It is not Lorenzi's supposition, in other words. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The item was not removed, but merely placed into a note to the editor with an "invisible". Please leave that in place until a propoer discussion has taken place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "invisible" tag is what I object to. It is not appropriate to render something that has been in the article for several weeks, and covered in hundreds of news outlets, invisible until discussion has taken place. Rather I believe it should have remained visible pending discussion. However I have no interest in an edit war. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need some votes here, folks. Bzuk hid a significant portion of the Amelia Earhart article - part of which has been in place for months without prior challenge, and part for weeks - due to his objection that it is a "Rosella Lorenzi supposition". I would argue that publication of this news in hundreds of media outlets (online and print), and direct quotes from multiple persons from TIGHAR and elsewhere, supports continued inclusion of this section. The contested section revolves around the aluminum panel found on Gardner Island, a photo found that shows a similar panel on Earhart's Electra, and matching of the rivet pattern in the found aluminum panel to the rivet pattern shown in the photo. The vote is on whether we support OMISSION of that section. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too much emphasis on this odd panel which in the hypothesis is said to be a non-standard patch over a window hole on the Electra, a piece of aluminum riveted on securely, so why would it be found without the rest of the plane? It makes little sense, but TIGHAR thinks they have something special. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a lot of emphasis because of the newly discovered photo which clearly shows the panel, including its rivet pattern, and the pattern, shape and size of the found panel precisely matching the photo. The manufacturing specs are a match too. Perhaps TIGHAR is getting overly excited but it is new and compelling evidence, even if it's still circumstantial. As for why it wasn't attached to anything - it's not difficult to believe the rivets would corrode/wear away after decades of weathering and/or that they would fail during a crash. Anyway, I'd be fine with a shorter section on it but I still don't support complete omission. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under what conditions was the plane subject to weathering? If the panel's rivets corroded so much that the panel fell off, where is the rest of the plane, ostensibly more visible on a higher elevation? If the panel separated in a crash (which is highly unlikely... it would tear first) then where is the rest of the plane? It should be right near by, but it is not. I see wishful thinking here, researchers convincing themselves. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just my personal musings, but if the rest of the plane was pounded by waves and swept out to sea, as seems to be TIGHAR's supposition, it's not hard for me to imagine the riveted plate being torn loose through wave action and salt water corrosion, assuming it wasn't deliberately torn off by the aircraft occupants for some purpose. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There is neither proof that it was weathered, nor that it wasn't weathered. But it is no stretch of the imagination to think of likely scenarios where the panel could have been separated from the plane's hull and left in the condition TIGHAR found it in. The lack of material attached to the panel is, in my opinion, a Red herring argument, especially given the three other ways in which it matches. Besides, I am not arguing that the article needs to state as fact that the panel definitively came from the Electra; it simply needs to give coverage to the panel matching the amount of coverage seen in media. To wit: at least 2 other editors have tried to add passages to the article regarding the panel, despite it already being addressed in the article, due to that media coverage. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any further comment from anyone? If not, I'd propose that we jointly work on a shortened & modified reference to the aluminum panel here, and once everyone's satisfied, replace the ghosted passage with that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? I find the argument posed thus far unsatisfactory for ghosting of this topic in the main article - the premise that "it is merely another Lorenzi supposition" being both incorrect and an invalid reason for ghosting in light of widespread media coverage and TIGHAR analysis - but am willing to work toward an abbreviated alternative. If no one else is interested in posing stronger arguments for ghosting then I will de-ghost the original passage in its entirety. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bink already made the point that TIGHAR makes these annual announcements of a "Find of Great Importance" only to rescind the notice later when it was found to be inaccurate. See the women's shoe, map case, bones, ad infinitum. Regardless, I have altered the entry to reflect what was found. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015

Can I please edit/add onto you amazing and well written biography? Tuki03 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amelia_Earhart&oldid=647779873"