Jump to content

Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Edit/Reference Request--Radio Signals Section

The first sentence of the last paragraph of the section titled Radio Signals states: "Some of these reports of transmissions were later determined to be hoaxes but others were deemed authentic." It is well documented that some of the people claiming to have heard Earhart were perpetrating a hoax, e.g., Finding Amelia, Gillespie, page 125 (first reference below). On the other hand, as far as I know, none of the claims have been authenticated, much less has anyone explained how authentication was achieved. If transmissions have indeed been authenticated, a reference for this fact should be added; if not, the statement that some transmissions were authenticated should be removed from the sentence. Perhaps the author of this sentence is thinking of Tighar's Post-Loss Catalog (second reference below), a compilation of possible radio transmissions. But the Post-Loss catalog never claims any transmission was authentic, it goes only as far as saying certain reported radio transmissions are 'credible'.

Google Books Finding Amelia link: https://books.google.com/books?id=0FMiJnVvFYIC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=Pierson+and+McMenam&source=bl&ots=lL9-97ELnd&sig=SdppTsz4sg6xmXhTUfg2HWbix3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_2ruq55LOAhWJXR4KHQoMC3cQ6AEITDAH#v=onepage&q=Pierson%20and%20McMenam&f=false

Tighar's post-loss catalog: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html

71.183.8.188 (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Height

Amelia Earhart' Air Transport license indicates her height as being 5'8" tall - not 5'7" tall as described on Amelia Earhart's cover data [1]page. See the above link: Leslie Kinney Lgkinney (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That source was from the age of 31, a decade before her death, and people frequently lose a bit of height as they age due to spinal compression. I wouldn't be surprised if both figures are correct, OR if she was actually 5'7.5". Still, that's probably excessive detail; I'd support listing her height as 5'8" based on this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 Not done per the above. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=amelia+earhart+license&view=detailv2&&id=CEA3AB351A26EC32B8FC806DF6E8D13CA0D648FD&selectedIndex=16&ccid=vsSjOLVI&simid=608009182259840706&thid=OIP.Mbec4a338b548b96c06640b0adda29c9co0&ajaxhist=0

Update Request – Gardner Island Skeletal Material

The 5th paragraph under the heading “Gardner Island hypothesis” concludes:

“In 1998, however, an analysis of the measurement data by forensic anthropologists did not confirm the original findings, concluding instead, that the skeleton had belonged to a "tall white female of northern European ancestry." The bones themselves were misplaced in Fiji long ago and have not been found.[160]”

Recently (2015) a paper was published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports that contradicts the 1998 analysis and supports the 1941 British findings (see reference below).

As this is the one and only formally peer-reviewed and published/presented scholarly report to have appeared since 1941, I strongly suggest it be recognized with an update to the Wiki paragraph such as (example):

“In 1998 [word deleted] an analysis of the measurement data by forensic anthropologists did not confirm the original findings, concluding instead, that the skeleton had belonged to a "tall white female of northern European ancestry”. However, a more recent published study concluded in 2015 that “the most robust scientific analysis and conclusions are those of the original British finding indicating that the Nikumaroro bones belonged to a robust, middle-aged man, not Amelia Earhart.” The bones themselves were misplaced in Fiji long ago and have not been found.[160]”

The bold font in my example above is merely to highlight the actual update language, and is not intended to be included in the article. The quoted portion of the suggested update is taken verbatim from the abstract of the 2015 Cross/Wright paper. A reference citation to the 2015 paper could also be included on the Wiki page if the Editors so desire.

Reference: “The Nikumaroro bones identification controversy: First-hand examination versus evaluation by proxy — Amelia Earhart found or still missing?”, Pamela J. Cross and Richard Wright, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3 (2015) 52–59. The highlights and abstract can be viewed for free at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300109. There is a charge to the general public for viewing the entire report online, however, either I or Dr. Wright himself can furnish a review copy to the Editors upon request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B149:8CC0:6082:C895:8277:C1CD (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016

In 2008, an airplane shaped object was discovered in a Google Earth 2006 satellite image of Orona, previously known as Hull Island, in the Phoenix Islands. Symmetry analysis shows this object to be Amelia Earhart's L10e aircraft. A subsequent Japanese capture theory has evolved from this image and is presented at my website aquariusradar.com/OronaSaipanTheory.html. As all other disappearance theories, it is speculation The Wiki editors must note that all theories regarding the AE disappearance are speculation and selecting some and rejecting others is not fair play. Add a few lines to the Japanese capture paragraph that discuss this Orona theory: AE crash landed at Orona and survived the crash. She was later captured by Japanese.


70.191.229.104 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also WP:RS and WP:OR issues EvergreenFir (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir and other Wiki editors have favored speculative theories about the Amelia Earhart disappearance. The changes I want to see are the addition of two sentences in the Japanese capture paragraph. Add the following sentences:

"The Orona theory speculates that AE safely landed at Orona and survived. The American fliers were later captured by Japanese Army pirates."

The requirement for reference sources and original research with reference to speculative theories is meaningless. The reference or research for speculation is in itself speculative. Just because a speculative story appeared in a newspaper 50 years ago does not make that reference or research reliable; it is speculative as well. Yes, reference and research are required for science, math, language articles but not unsolved mysteries of history that are 100% speculative from the start. So Wiki should include all speculative theories or eliminate them from the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.229.104 (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016

Hello. On the Page for Amelia Earhart, and under the Pop Culture section, there should be the Video "Fly to the Angels", by Slaughter. The Song/Video is about Amelia Earhart. The song is from 1989/1990 - - - here is a link to the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukmobha2krY

Thank you for your work. Peace.

Disciple4lif (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. -- Dane2007 talk 06:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Nukumaroro 'New York'

After she disappeared, several ham radio operators heard messages purportedly from Earhart. One woman said that Earhart used the words "New York" several times. Bearing in mind that it was called Gardner island at the time, is it possible that it may have appeared as Nukumaroro on some map and that Earhart was aware of this used that word - and that the radio listener misinterpreted it as 'New York.' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.229 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

In the Finding Amelia book the words are reported as 'New York City', possibly repeated. It is known that the Norwich City freighter was wrecked on the Gardner Island reef and was present at the time of the Electra's disappearance. It is possible that an American pronunciation of Norwich might be heard as 'New York' when heard via HF radio with background notice and interference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.136.9.4 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Update - Popular Culture

I do believe that on the Popular Cuture section, there should be a reference to the fact that Alex Hirsh, creator of Gravity Falls, wrote on the book "Gravity Falls: Journal 3" timeline that Amelia Earhart allegedly escapd into the Gravity Falls forests following the crashing of her plane into the surrounding mountains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCharneca (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Transatlantic solo flight in 1932

In the section Transatlantic solo flight in 1932 it mentions Londonderry when it should refer to Derry as per WP:IMOS. Could an editor please change this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.171.146 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Distance

Just some random notes about distance...

It doesn't add up. Does Lae to Howland include a headwind? Adding distance to Gardner makes it too much. So there is nautical and statute mile confusion in the article. If 2556 statute miles, then the 11 to 14 km discrepancy may be the 1937 chart error for Gardner Island of roughly 5 nautical miles (9.3 km). There is a belief Noonan had correct location: Tigar Howland Island. Glrx (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

Please wikify the first reference to Yellow Peril so that children will not accidentally commit hate speech by reading the name of her car out loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.155.1 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Question.

I read this- "Earhart disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean near Howland Island". What about this instead- Earhart disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean en route to Howard Island. In other words, replace the word near, with en route? Technically, she was en route, which means on the way. Also this - "Pacific Wrecks, a website that documents World War II-era aircraft crash sites, notes that no Electra has been reported lost in or around Papua New Guinea. Gillespie wrote that the 2,000-mile (3,200 km) distance from Earhart's last known position to New Britain was impossible for the aircraft to fly, requiring more than 13 hours of flight when there were only 4 hours of fuel remaining". Who is Gillespie? And under Legacy, it reads- "Her shyly charismatic appeal, independence, persistence, coolness under pressure, courage and goal-oriented career along with the circumstances of her disappearance at a comparatively early age have driven her lasting fame in popular culture". I'm sorry, but adjectives like, shyly charismatic appeal, independence, and persistence, coolness under pressure read like opinions and I think they should be removed. Paige Matheson (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paige Matheson:.
I think "near Howland" is fine. Yes, she was en route, but she didn't find the island. Some theories have her continuing to search for Howland while other theories have her abandoning that destination and heading elsewhere. There might be something better.
Gillespie heads TIGHAR, a group that backs the Gardner Island Hypothesis.
Cut them out.
Glrx (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amelia Earhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amelia Earhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Change: "Throughout this period, her grandmother's inheritance..."

To: "Throughout the early 1920's, her grandmother's inheritance..."

You have links in the contents presumably so that people can read sections in an non-sequential order. I need to have read the previous section to understand what "this period" means. 109.76.176.228 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we tend to assume that an interested reader will read the whole article (and even remember what was in an earlier section). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
And that assumption, happy though it sounds, is sometimes unwarranted. (I once had a friend who read books chapter by chapter, in reverse order.) I think this request is reasonable—despite the unwelcome apostrophe in "1920's"—but the sentence had other problems. So...
Done, as part of a larger edit. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Amelia Earhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amelia Earhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart Centre, Derry is no longer open

The Amelia Earhart Centre in Derry is no longer open, nor is the Amelia Earhart Society website available. 92.3.199.172 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Was that the The Amelia Earhart Cottage Museum. Do you have a source for when it closed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

http://www.museumofwomenpilots.com/index.html

In the extra links the "Museum of women pilots" is now a dead link.

Belligerant (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed, thanks for pointing it out. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that. As that domain name is now for sale, it seems, I removed the link altogether. But I've added 99s Museum of Women Pilots to the "See also" section - I assume that is related? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Was there an edit conflict here? According to the edit history I removed the link, but you added the see also. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha. Yes, I think so. No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Phenomenal industry

The current version states that Earhart had her first airplane ride on Dec. 28, 1920, and then "Working at a variety of jobs, including photographer, truck driver, and stenographer at the local telephone company, she managed to save $1,000 for flying lessons." Six days later, on January 3, 1921, she had her first lesson. Either some of the facts are wrong or the sentence overstates the case. Or, perhaps she was one heck of a worker, in which case maybe that should be the emphasis of the article. FullnessOfTime (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The source provided doesn't help really help (and says nothing about her mother's stake in the $1,000?) I think one must assume that she didn't have to pay the whole sum up front before she had the first lesson, but the word "save" does suggest that. One might also assume the lessons were strung out, perhaps over the entire year of 1921? Perhaps we could think of a less ambiguous turn of phrase, or maybe even find a better source? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

In this recently added passage about the 2017 history channel, two unknown persons are referred to as "a Caucasian male and female", when they mean "A Caucasian man and woman".

"In 2017, a History Channel special, "Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence" uncovered a photograph in the National Archives with annotation that it was taken in 1937 at Jaluit Atoll, showing a Caucasian male and female on a dock who appear to match Earhart and Noonan according to facial recognition experts.[187] The special theorizes that the photo was taken after Earhart and Noonan crashed at Mili Atoll and that the Japanese ship Koshu Maru then took the two to Saipan, where both later died in Japanese custody.[188]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.25.170 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Japanese research of History Channel documentary photo

Added the link to the 1935 photo album digitized by the National Diet Library that apparently predates the final Earhart/Noonan flight by over a year. The original researcher who found this, wrote about his discovery here. The researcher has since also created an English language version of his post linked on the page. Clearly a blog post is inappropriate as a source. However feel the link to the National Diet Library entry is appropriate for wikipedia.Kintpuash (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Added third party citation to the section. Kintpuash (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

San Matean Says Japanese Executed Amelia Earhart

  • Day, Linwood McGuire (27 May 1960). "San Matean Says Japanese Executed Amelia Earhart" Woman's Story : [Aviatrix Died Before Saipan Firing Squad]. San Mateo Times. Vol. 60, no. 127. San Mateo, California: Amphlett Printing Company. p. 1. A San Mateo woman who may have been one of the last to see Amelia Earhart alive, says that the famed aviatrix was executed by a Japanese firing squad even while the U.S. Navy was spending $4,000,000 in a futile search for the missing flier and her navigator, Frederick Noonan. Mrs. Josephine Blanco Akiyama of 15 South Idaho Street, has identified pictures of Amelia as the "American lady pilot" she saw taken into custody on the fortress island of Saipan in July 1937. The woman flier was accompanied by a man, she said, an American also dressed in aviator's garb. {{cite news}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)
  • San Matean Says Japanese Executed Amelia Earhart

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

museumofwomenpilots.com @ wayback.archive.org/web

  • "99s Museum of Women Pilots". museumofwomenpilots.com. 4300 Amelia Earhart Road, Oklahoma City, OK 73159: 99s International Organization of Women Pilots. Archived from the original on 2014-05-03. Retrieved 12 July 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding. I added a link to 99s Museum of Women Pilots in the "See also" section. Do you think this external link also needs to be re-added? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
re-add external links
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Um, we already have 13? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The only Earhart resource that I found at museumofwomenpilots.org or museumofwomenpilots.com was her pilot's license, which I referenced. Earhart resources of 99s Museum of Women Pilots are mostly physical. The Museum's online resources are mostly text lists of people, aimed at researchers who may be interested in the Museum's holdings. ninety-nines.org has more online.
multimedia content :
  • National Portrait Gallery (June 29, 2012). "One Life: Amelia Earhart". Smithsonian Institution. Films from the University of South Carolina Moving Image Research Collections. Photographs from the George Palmer Putnam Collection. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart in Statuary Hall

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

History Channel

Why is the History Channel's recent programme given so much prominence (3 paragraphs) when it has so comprehensively - and so quickly - been discredited? The programme, and coverage of it, should be mentioned, as this illustrates the continuing interest in Earhart, 80 years after her disappearance, but it should only be given the attention appropriate to overreaching based on flimsy evidence. --PLUMBAGO 10:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The same applies to the TIGHAR section on the Gardner Island hypothesis which has not produced any validated physical evidence to support the hypothesis. The only substantial body of "evidence" is the more than 100 first-person accounts in Micronesia and specially in the Marshall Islands and Saipan. These witness statements stem back to 1937 and have been remarkably consistent despite the passage of time. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

I would like to add how Amelia Earhart contributed to the advancement of women in science. Keilahann (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What advancements did she make? It will work best here if you can say exactly what she is credited with, citing a reliable publication as the source. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Nihlus (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Mainly crash and sink theory, first and foremost

Let's keep the focus on the crash and sink theory, which is by far the most plausible and widely held belief, despite its being uninteresting (and unprofitable) to the modern-day researcher. Some recent wording made the assertion that there were two main theories, but really there's only one main one, with all the others gathered underneath it. I much prefer SnowFire's repair job which brought the point home that the crash and sink theory is the most likely, while all the other theories are unlikely. I think having the crash and sink theory listed first gives it the respect it deserves. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Coconut Crabs?

While editing the references for this species' page, I replaced a dead link with an extant one to support the suggestion that Earhart's remains may have been consumed by them. It's not a claim that I'd heard before, but a Google search for "amelia earhart horseshoe crabs" does throw up a few hits. Does this warrant a mention? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. Those hits mostly mention Earhart because her name will grab eyes. If her body ended up on the island, she was probably eaten by lots of things. In my opinion, it's too tabloid for an encyclopedia. Leschnei (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
They are big, aren't they. But online mentions do seem a bit tabloid. What's next, even scarier crabs? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it's a bit speculative. I've been bold and removed the claim: there's no point alarming folks unnecessarily ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Missing text re: modification

The section "Final approach to Howland Island" currently says this:

  • While the plane was in flight, the wire antenna would be played out of the tail; efficient transmissions at 500 kHz needed a long antenna. The antenna was bulky and heavy, so the trailing wire antenna was removed to save weight. If nothing else had been done, the plane would have been unable to transmit an RDF signal that Itasca could use. Such a modification was made, but without voice communication from Itasca to the plane, the ship could not tell the plane to use its 500 kHz signal."

There seems to be a missing description of a modification. I distinctly remember that the article at one time said that radio technician Joe Gurr made a modification to the transmitter to enable 500 KHz transmission on the HF antenna, thus leading Earhart to believe she could jettison the trailing wire antenna. I have searched back more than 4 years through the diffs, but didn't locate mention of a modification. It's possible that the details appeared 2-3 years ago and were reverted, leaving the non-sequitur. This needs clearing up. Akld guy (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Surely, that should be "paid out of the tail" not "played out of the tail"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "paid out at the tail". Good spotting. We still have the undisclosed modification, if there was one. Akld guy (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
e/c
Yes, wikt:pay out.
I've been looking at pieces of the radio story, and there's lots of uncertainty. From what I've found out about the trailing antenna (TA), the story is confused and motivation is divergent. Gillespie gives his take at NR16020 antennas. Gillespie has the TA in the plane as delivered. Then fuel tanks were added to the cabin (possibly making it difficult to reach the tail), so the TA was moved forward and pays out of a ventral mast. The accident at Luke Field collapsed both forward gear resulting in the destruction of the TA mast and other ventral antennas. Gurr states all the radio equipment was removed while the plane was repaired. Some sources imply that Earhart ordered the TA removed to save weight, but it seems more proper to say she didn't have it repaired and reinstalled. Manning had left the team after the crash, so no one on the flight was authorized (had an FCC license) to transmit on 500 kHz (or had Morse skills) and the antenna would be dead weight. Gurr thought losing the ability to transmit on 500 kHz was a bad idea, so he modified the dorsal Vee antenna to have a minimal 500 kHz ability. Some newspapers claim there were some 500 kHz modifications made in Miami after the second flight started.
Gurr modified the antenna, but Gurr did not modify the transmitter. Gillespie claims the WeCo transmitter came with 500 kHz but without the dorsal Vee. That seems a bit odd. IIRC, the plane was worked on later by Bell Labs, and they installed the Vee. I would have expected the WeCo radios to go in at that time or be modified then.
TIGHAR has some comments about Gurr's antenna modifications, but I'm not sure all comments are RS.
I intend to put more information about the antennas in the article, but I need more time and a clearer picture. (If you want to add stuff, go ahead.) I think TIGHAR has the basic antenna story right. The transmitter was connected to the dorsal Vee (no breakin relay) and apparently worked on 3105; there may be an unexplained problem with 6210. The Electra was not receiving on 3105 or 6210, and that could be explained by a lost ventral antenna. (The lost antenna story has its own problems.) The Electra had a working receiver because it acknowledged receipt of 7500 kHz signals (presumably via the DF loop). Loop should have been able to receive 500 kHz, 3105, and 6210 as well, but AE probably was not looking for DF signals at those frequencies.
Glrx (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That's pretty comprehensive, thank you. Perhaps I read on the Gillespie site or in a book that Gurr modified something and assumed I had read it here in the article. Akld guy (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

Dave Jourdan and Nauticos also searched for the Earhart Electra during a third expedition, the Eustace Earhart Discovery Expedition From Feb 18 - mid April of 2017 covering an additional 1800 square miles of seafloor at a cost of $3M. Elgen Long served onboard as a consultant. See: http://expeditionportal.nauticos.com/amelia-data/ See Also: http://www.eham.net/articles/38931

The current Wikipage only notes the 2002 and 2006 expeditions stating:

"Through his company Nauticos he extensively searched a 1,200-square-mile (3,100 km2) quadrant north and west of Howland Island during two deep-sea sonar expeditions (2002 and 2006, total cost $4.5 million) and found nothing."


Thank You TheMarquisB (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheMarquisB:  Not done. Regarding your sources, please see WP:PRIMARY. If you think this request still passes muster in that regard, please type out exactly what you'd like the article to say. CityOfSilver 20:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

>> Remove the term "aviator". Amelia was either an aviatrix or a female pilot. Per definition, a "female aviator" is an "aviatrix" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aviatrix). Flyer18 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no reason to revert to outdated 1930's terminology. "Aviator" is now considered non-gendered by every authoritative source: "the operator or pilot of an aircraft and especially an airplane" (Merriam-Webster) "dated A pilot." (Oxford Dictionary), and "One who operates an aircraft; a pilot." (American Heritage Dictionary) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

CNE

It's the Canadian National Exhibition, not Exposition. John FitzGerald (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So I finally fixed it.John FitzGerald (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

Change Earhart disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean near Howland Island. To Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean near Howland Island. 73.158.227.57 (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Graduation year corrected

Amelia Earhart graduated from Hyde Park high school in 1915. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlee51789 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Madagascar

I think it might be worth making reference to the Madagascar film series for the 'in popular culture' section. In the first film there is a crashed plane with a skeleton in one of the trees; and in the Merry Madagascar short TV film, King Julien is shown to have a romantic relationship with the skeleton, and refers to it as 'Amelia'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:4303:8E00:570:7974:D1BA:5581 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think perverts like 2A00 should be banned from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.166 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean 2A00:23C5:4303:8E00:570:7974:D1BA:5581 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.166 (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent claim behind pay wall

Bones discovered on a Pacific island belong to Amelia Earhart, a new forensic analysis claims / Forensic evidence indicates bones on Pacific Island belonged to the famous pilot. By Marwa Eltagouri Washington Post 7 or 8 March 2018 Kdammers (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

this story is freely available, no doubt other RSs will be reporting the story. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears to be pretty definitive. "A British party exploring the island for habitation in 1940 found a human skull, a woman's shoe, a Navy tool used by her navigator Fred Noonan (who also vanished), and a bottle of the herbal liqueur Benedictine - "something Earhart was known to carry"." And now they are 99% sure the bones were hers, and 100% sure they belonged to a woman. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This "new" claim is a rehash of an article by Richard L. Jantz (and others) from 1998 - link to publication on TIGHAR site: https://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html#dick This prior claim was discounted in a 2015 re-examination of the 1941 evaluation of the bones - both the original examination by the head of the Central Medical School in Fiji and the 2015 paper that re-exemined Dr. Hoodless' study of the actual bones found noted that the bones appeared to be from a older, "stocky" male, not Amelia Earhart. Link to 2015 paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300109?showall%3Dtrue%26via%3Dihub (note this is behind a pay wall but may be accessible from another source). One thing left out of Jantz's 2018 re-hash is that when Dr. Hoodless examined the actual bones (which have been lost sometime after 1941) it was noted that (in 1941) it appeared the bones were 20 years old - so they were much older than the 1937 date Earhart and Fred Noonan disappeared over the Pacific Ocean. This also appears to be a battle between two dueling forensic software items - one of which is the one developed by Jantz. To read the original telegrams related to the finding of the bones and their examination in 1941 - follow this link: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html As for the other items found in 1940 along with the bones - they were actually a wooden case that may have been for a sextant - but appeared to be a box for holding misc. items. The bottle of Benedictine - I will have to research more - but it would be unlikely for Earhart to have any spirits - she is usually noted as a non-drinker and Fred Noonan while having a modern reputation as a drinker would have been unlikely to be carrying anything like that as well. signed - Chris W. Taylor - executive director of the Atchison County (KS) Historical Society - the birthplace and hometown of Earhart - and the museum which has the largest collection of Earhart artifacts on exhibit at least until Purdue Univ. builds their museum for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.46.62 (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The word "modern" seems to be a mistake for "moderate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.166 (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The use of "modern" doesn't seems like a mistake to me. My interpretation of his claim was that modern depictions of Noonan have overemphasized his drinking problems, sometimes to the point that he has been caricatured as a hopeless drunk incompetent who helped doom Earhart, when in fact he was a very skilled navigator who had a lot of experience serving Pan American Airways, an airline that, because of its routes, probably depended more on reliable trans-oceanic navigation than any other airline at the time. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
See https://earharttruth.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/fred-noonans-drinking-in-search-of-the-true-story/ This seems to deal with the evidence fairly well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.166 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Category

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

Edit request / March 2018

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)

 Done –Ammarpad (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2018

She disappeared and that's that. 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)

1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques

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)

A reference in popular culture should be added: On the TV Show "Friends" there is a reference to Amelia Earhart in S09E18 "The One With The Lottery", where the group is sitting in the café and Ross jokes about winning the lottery and spending the money on finding out what happened to Amelia Earhart. He exclames "The woman just vanished!" Mad Mäxi (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Whooaaa! Not settled.

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)

The Gardner (Nikumaroro) Island write up must be abbreviated. The lenght indicates importance in many readers minds. The recent completion of extensive exploration by the National Geographic/Nautilus expedition has found no evidence of an aircraft on the island or underwater off the reef shelf to great depth. This exploration, throughly comprehensive, shows that Nikumaroro is no more likely than any other idea of dissapearance. Give equal space to all ideas or eliminate all speculation ideas from the biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.249.66 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Aluminum panel made to 1930 specifications?

The Gardner Island Hypothesis section mentions an aluminum panel found by TIGHAR on Nikumaroro. TIGHAR refers to this panel by the artifact designation '2-2-V-1'

The Wikipedia article currently states "an aluminum panel, possibly from an Electra, made using 1930s manufacturing specifications".

This is misleading. First of all, this statement doesn't indicate in what way the aluminum panel 'meets 1930s specifications'. TIGHAR has shown that the aluminum panel meets 1930s specifications in terms of chemical content, but those specifications did not change in later decades, so 2-2-V-1 also meets the specifications that were in effect during World War II, for example. If anyone out there believes the specifications were different in the 1930s than in the 1940s, they need to cite a source (they will not be able to). As the article notes elsewhere, a staffer at the New England Air Museum reported to TIGHAR that 2-2-V-1 matches the wing section of an airplane type (a C-47B) that crashed on another island in the Phoenix Islands group during WWII, and aluminum from that island was brought to Nikumaroro by residents of the Phoenix Islands.

The sentence I quoted should be reworded to eliminate the suggestion that a match to specifications is a point in favor of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis.

You might also want to point out that 2-2-v-1 has an alloy marking that the available evidence suggests was not used until 1941, i.e. the alloy marking is in a style that post-dates Earhart's disappearence. This was discussed on TIGHAR's web site, see also:

https://aluminummarkings.wordpress.com/

Note added: I'm thinking what I wrote above needs clarification. As I said, there are no '1930s manufacturing specifications' that the aluminum panel meets. Or at least if there are, the article doesn't cite them if they exist. And those specifications would have to have changed sometime after Earhart disappeared to be a factor in favor of 2-2-V-1 being aluminum of 1930s vintage. I suspect whoever wrote the 'meets 1930s manufacturing specifications' line was simply thinking about the fact that 2-2-v-1 is a sheet of Alcoa product known as 'Alclad', which began to be used in airplane construction in the 1930s (or as early as 1927 if you want to consider lighter than air) and continues to be so used to this day. There is a short Wikipedia article on Alclad with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.0.171 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


174.202.10.216 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

New England Air Museum Citation

The Gardner Island Hypothesis section states:

"In July 2017, staff from the New England Air Museum notified TIGHAR that the unique rivet pattern of the aluminum panel precisely matched the top of the wing of a C-47B in the museum inventory;[citation needed] particularly significant since a C-47B crashed on a nearby island during World War II and villagers acknowledged bringing aluminum from that wreck to Gardner Island.[231]"

Here is the needed citation: https://istigharartifact2-2-v-1apieceofac-47wing.yolasite.com/

71.183.0.171 (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The sextant box was not found under a Ren tree

The Gardner Island Hypothesis section states:

''On September 23, 1940, Gallagher radioed his superiors that he had found a "skeleton ... possibly that of a woman", along with an old-fashioned sextant box, under a tree on the island's southeast corner

This is slightly inaccurate. The September 23 message from Gallagher stated:

"...Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull – this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones ( including lower jaw ) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. I would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman, (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10, (c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542 – sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Bones look more than four years old to me..."

Gallagher says additional bones, a sextant box, and other items were found but does not say any of these items were found under a tree.

In a later message, dated October 17, 1940 Gallagher states that the bones were found under a Ren tree:

"Bones were found on South East corner of island about 100 feet above ordinary high water springs. Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life."

Notice that Gallagher says the bones were found under a tree, but does not say anything about where the sextant box or other items were found. The sextant box and other items were surely found in the vicinity of the bones, but not necessarily under the tree with the bones.

The Ghost of Gardner Island site that reported that linked the sextant box to the USS Bushnell made this point, that whoever it was from the Bushnell surveying party that left the sextant box behind did not necessarily leave it under the Ren tree.

Gallagher's messages can be found at: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html

The Ghost of Gardner Island site is reference in this article already, but FYI the link is http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-origin-of-nikumaroro-sextant-box.html

71.183.3.45 (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sextant box linked to USS Bushnell

Oddly, the Gardner Island section of this article now provides footnote [203] referencing the TIGHAR site regarding the research that links the sextant box found on Nikumaroro to the USS Bushnell. Right now the article reads:

In late 1939, USS Bushnell did a survey of the island.[202] It is believed that the Bushnell is the source of a navigation sextant box found on the island in 1940.[203]

The person who did the research at the US National Archives (umm, me) linking the sextant box to the Bushnell reports his findings here: http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-origin-of-nikumaroro-sextant-box.html

I believe an earlier version of this section of the Wikipedia article linked to this primary source rather than to the TIGHAR site. What is ironic about this is that if you read the primary source you'll see that the it was suggested to TIGHAR (by me) that the Bushnell was the source of the sextant box and that the National Archives might have records proving this to be the case. TIGHAR refused to explore this possibility and heaped scorn on the idea, as explained in the link I've provided above. Don't you think the sentence "It is believed that the Bushnell is the source of a navigation sextant box found on the island in 1940." should provide a link to the primary source that explains why that is believed--my report on my research--rather than to a secondary source that doesn't explain my research in any depth? I do.

71.183.1.200 (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Harrison, New York

While Earhart was away on a speaking tour in late November 1934, a fire broke out at the Putnam residence in Harrison, destroying many family treasures and Earhart's personal mementos. The street she lived on is now named after her. Jacobsone20 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

New Amelia-Mary-Earhart-Straße in Germany

There is a Amelia-Mary-Earhart-Straße located (here) at the relatively new municipality Gateway Gardens. It is located very close to the former Rhein-Main Air Base and Frankfurt Airport. --87.147.189.94 (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart sibling

Amelia Earhart's sister's name was Grace Muriel Earhart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7346:4100:909:9291:DC63:3268 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

Change "First woman to fly nonstop, coast-to-coast across the U.S. (1933)" to 1932 (under "Records and achievements). Source: http://collections.lib.purdue.edu/aearhart/timeline.php Abalderrama (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

On the summary thar appears in google her place of death is listed as California. It also state she disappeared on a flight from PNG. Obviously it can't be both. 68.118.189.207 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I quicky checked the article and do not see a mention to California in relation to her death. If you wish a change to be made, please mention where this is. Thanks, Terasail[✉] 23:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

The name of the city of Cleveland should be linked in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.210.218 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of trailing antenna

https://tighar.org/wiki/Removal_of_trailing_antenna

This article talks about the removal of the trailing antenna on Earhart's electra, which would have extended 250 feet behind the aircraft in flight. This would have been extremely effective and would have signalled distress on 500khz, the emergency frequency at the time, as well having allowed bearings to be taken on the location of the Earhart plane. There is much speculation on the removal of the antenna, and there is no conclusive evidence as to when it was removed during the circumnavigation attempt in 1937. Some have criticized Earhart's attitude towards radio, seeing it as a luxury and not a necessity, so she likely didn't see it as necessary and left it out sometime during the trip. Additionally, some have pointed towards saboteurs intentionally removing it after the plane was repaired in Hawaii in March of 1937, as there is no evidence of the antenna visible externally when the airplane emerged from the repair shop.

I was wondering how this information could be incorporated into this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerothent (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit to protected page.

In section on repairs made at lockheed facility in Burbank, burbank should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burbank,_California#Aviation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:4080:100D:8150:3E7C:3FFF:FE0F:666 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Ok, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keilahann.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A minor grammatical fix

Under Radio signals

The paragraph beginning with: “Whether any post-loss…” It states: “This frequency was thought to be not fit for broadcasts over great distances.”

The negative between the full infinitive and adjective makes the sentence a bit disjunct. I would recommend “was thought to be unfit” (use the negative adjective) or “was thought not to be fit.” (precede the infinitive with the negative)

Sorry to comment on such a trivial thing. 221.191.248.234 (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Departure time from Lae airport

The article states that the Lockheed Electra 10-E took off from Lae, New Guinea at midnight GMT, but that doesn't seem right. Midnight GMT is 10 am local link! The Electra 10-E cruises at 190 mph link, so it would take 13 hrs travel 2500 miles to reach Howland, thus the plane would arrive about 11 pm. That doesn't work; that's the middle of the night. Meanwhile, the article text suggest the Electra was expecting to arrive at Howland by 8 am (UTC? Local?). I am generally confused about the timing... :( I started this just wanting to know how many hours the flight from Lea to Howland was - perhaps those that know better than my own OR hear could provide an edit to indicate the expected travel time? Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the citations indicates the departure time WAS 10 am local. Also that the travel time from Darwin to Lae was 7 hours, a distance of 1900 km/1180 mi, according to google. So speed 170 mph. The idea I gather, is that the flight time would be much longer than 13 hours, putting the Electra near Howland in the early hours of the next day? Perhaps some narrative to this effect could/should be given? If they were in flight until about 8 am, that puts them in the air for 22 hours (and out of gas)? Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Disappeared July 2?

The article notes, and sources seem to indicate, that Amelia disappeared on July 2. But that's not true! She took off from Lae at 10 am on July 2, and was heard, clearly and several times, near Howland Island the morning of the next day, July 3. Ergo...she disappeared on July 3 (was last heard from). Bdushaw (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah...I've just recalled that they crossed the date line, so would have lost a day...Departed 2 July, arrived Howland 2 July...the article should note this! Bdushaw (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo

“Born and raised in Atchison, Kansas, and later in Des Moines, Iowa, Earhart developed a passion for adventure at a young age, steadily gaining flying experience from her twenties. In 1928, Earhart became the first womam passenger to cross the Atlantic by airplane (accompanying pilot Wilmer Stultz), for which she achieved celebrity status.”

Pretty early in in the article woman is misspelled as ‘womam.’ 2600:1700:4390:F5F0:E884:42B0:43B:C8FE (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to split the article

I've looked over this article and find that it is just too long - the article strays from its main purpose, a biography of AE, and wanders into lengthy, detailed discussions of theories of what happened on the last flight. I would suggest breaking the article into this biography and a new article Disappearance of Amelia Earhart, say, in which the various details and theories would be more logical. Present day searches for the airplane have no bearing on the biography of AE! (I see the suggested "article" exists presently as a redirect to this biography.) Bdushaw (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree this would be the best option. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bessie Coleman

Amelia Earhart was not the first female Bessie Coleman was. She was a license pilot and flu before Amelia Amelia Earhart. Your article on Amelia Earhart is racist and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Albert G Davis Jr (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved to more appropriate location. Bdushaw (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Add external link to Smithsonian's page about her airplane: https://www.si.edu/object/lockheed-vega-5b-amelia-earhart:nasm_A19670093000

Moved this link suggestion to more appropriate location. Time/date/author of original suggestion unknown. Bdushaw (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

change female aviator to FEMALE aviator 130.44.205.220 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Are you requesting that we just allcaps female? If so, no. Cannolis (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Please change this page to show that Amelia Earhart was lost in the Bermuda Triangle. Deeelala88 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

85 not 80

its been 85 years since shes been gone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.212.20 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it won't be 85 years until July 2, 2022. So "over 80" is still perfectly appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone

We have phrases here such as "while to the reader today" which I do not think belong in an encyclopedia. I also gave the feel this article is too laudatory. The section on her involvement in fashion advertisement seems intent on trying to make it seem she did something other than sell out to the fashion industry to trade her fame for money. It is a classic case of protesting too much. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Radio Direction Finding Frequencies

Add to paragraph discussion of RDF frequencies the following sentences: "Amelia messaged Itasca with specific frequencies for use as radio homing to be transmitted by Itasca." https://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/digital/collection/earhart/id/1929/rec/2170 "Itasca never transmitted these frequencies 333Kc and or 545Kc; very late in the approach and arrival search time near Howland Island, Itasca did transmit on 500Kc but never on the requested frequencies nor 425Kc. It is not known how Itasca selected this frequency 425Kc in the calibration message the ship sent back to Amelia at Lae as it was between bands and could not have been received by the W20B receiver." AquariusTom (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

Please add to In Popular Culture section the information about Heather Nova's song dedicated to Amelia Earhart "I Miss My Sky (Amelia Earhart's Last Days)" https://new.songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858723146 79.163.162.9 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Not correct at all

Look up Blanche Stuart Scott the real first female to fly she also did more for aviation than Earhart did. 2603:6080:E400:5B31:A048:72FD:24FD:2D43 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

See Blanche Scott article - she's already in Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

How was she influential? I need this for a biography I am writing about her in History class!! 73.177.173.9 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

She is the first woman and she was the solo she was born in July 24 1897and nobody knows is she died or alive or something ate her of Japan put her In jail and died 24.49.195.10 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

DNA

Did they match the two DNA specimen against each other - the one from Tarawa and the one from Fiji? --85.249.40.80 (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

there is a spelling mistake that I have found organization it is actually organisation 2A02:C7E:43F:4300:B03F:1687:32BB:DFB8 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:ENGVAR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The hidden "gap-toothed smile".

In the 'Promoting Aviation' section, the caption for the photograph reads: 'Putnam specifically instructed Earhart to disguise a "gap-toothed" smile by keeping her mouth closed in formal photographs.'

I am interested in this, and would like to find evidence for it. However, it isn't referenced here, and I have had no luck corroborating this via the internet.

How do we know her husband/publicist told her to cover up her 'gap-toothed' smile? SkylarWoodward (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

Change “1939 deaths” to “1937 deaths” 108.45.88.77 (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

Suggest adding to === Other honors ===

  • Amelia Earhart Memorial Grove in Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park, California

Source: [1] Jidosha (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.redwoodparksconservancy.org/sites/redwoodparksconservancy.org/files/jsmithciderkingslandscape_09012016.pdf

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

Earhart's life has spurred the imaginations of many writers and others; the following examples are given although many other mentions have also occurred in contemporary or current media:

(snipped copy-paste of In Popular Culture section - SnowFire (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC) )

  • [Start ADD]In the 2023 video game, released by Bethesda Game Studios, Starfield, Earhart appears as a clone of the original on the planet Charybdis III, within the Charybdis star system. She’s located within the Crucible settlement and can be recruited as part of the player characters starship crew pending player choices.[End ADD] Drakkon0712 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestion. It does appear reliable sources discuss this, so I've added it. For future reference, no need to copy-paste the entire section over - just say "add this to In Popular Culture." SnowFire (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Birthday

Her birthday is 24/7/1898, not 1897. regards. 2003:DC:F70A:2000:1D13:17A3:A1F0:53C6 (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Proof. rgds, 2A00:20:D011:FD75:C5AB:4A7F:B848:F1FB (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a mistake. In fact the entry for the day looks so scrawled it's almost illegible? All of the other biographical sources listed in the article that I have looked at say 1897. I mean, it's on the front cover of this one? But I'd agree that the current single source given in the article here may not be a very strong and clear one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Srsly? illegible? It clearly reads "24th day of Jules, 1898." And "front covers"? Again, srsly?? I show an official document from the FAI, and you some "somethings"? If there´s doubt, somebody should find her birth certificate. 2A00:20:D00C:3F15:CCFF:3ECD:1F68:FEBD (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, afraid so, srsly. Do you know how many of the WP:RS's used in this article say 1897? I haven't yet found one that says 1898. Perhaps you can? I see that the FAI card is conserved at her birthplace museum? Do they use that date as her date of birth? Or how else do they explain it? Unfortunately we're not permitted to use birth certificates as sources here as they are "public records". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) p.s. the article currently uses this source for the date of issue, but there is no mention of the birth year discrepancy.
The book source (Long & Long 1999, p. 36) also used, says this: "On May 16, 1923, Amelia was issued certificate number 6017 by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale. It stated that the National Aeronautic Association of the United States certified that Amelia M. Earhart, born July 24, 1898 [sic], having fulfilled all of the conditions required by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale for an Aviator Pilot, was now brevetted as such." So they obviously noticed the discrepancy. I can think of no good reason why Earhart would have supplied incorrect information, so I think it was just a simple hand-written mistake. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

(For the "in popular culture" section)

In the childrens' TV show The Berenstain Bears (2002), in the episode "The Giddy Grandma", the children are given a homework assignment to write a report on a person they admire. Lizzy stated that she was going to write her report on "Amelia Bearhart". 32.223.177.216 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Even is there are reliable sources, this is extreme trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

David Jourdan (should he be linked)

The article in the crash and sink theory paragraph mentions "David Jourdan, a former Navy submariner and ocean engineer specializing in deep-sea recoveries, has claimed that any transmissions attributed to Gardner Island were false." Should he be linked in the paragraph to his page, David W. Jourdan? Strangely, his article doesn't seem to warrant much attention. 92.17.199.182 (talk) 21:43, 31 January 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,[1] 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

  1. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/30/travel/amelia-earhart-missing-plane-pacific-ocean-scn/index.html

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amelia_Earhart/Archive_15&oldid=1230743921"