Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 4

Disappearance theories

My last edit summary indicated the reason for combining two similar sections of this article. Please comment on the best means of dealing with what is understandably a set of theories, some of which are more supportable by research and others that fall into more of speculation and conjecture. I don't know if a consensus is necessary but a dialogue about the frankly fascinating disappearance and the associated efforts to shed light on the mystery would be of use. FWIW Bzuk 18:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Unsupported myth and tabloid fodder are hardly similar to the scientifically grounded "crash and sunk" and "Gardner island" possibilities. They do not belong in the same section. Indeed, I don't think the myth stuff belongs in the article at all but as a compromise have long accepted it in its own separate section at the bottom of the article. Gwen Gale 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The disappearance theories need to have a cohesion in that even if they are unsupportable, they all revolve around the same premise that the disappearance has a solution. I grant that some of the disputed theories have no or very little foundation, but the reader has to see that there is a broad connection regarding the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan. In the latest reference I have come across from Richard Strippel "Researching Amelia: A Detailed Summary for the Serious Researcher into the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." Air Classics Vol. 31, No. 11, November 1995, he deals with just this topic and groups them accordingly, I suggest the following arrangement as a half-way point:

Contents:

• 1 Early life
  • 1.1 Childhood
  • 1.2 "A sense of daring"
  • 1.3 Education
  • 1.4 Family fortunes
  • 1.5 Early flying experiences

• 2 Aviation career and marriage
  • 2.1 Boston
  • 2.2 1928 transatlantic flight
  • 2.3 "An image is crafted"
  • 2.4 Competitive flying
  • 2.5 Marriage
  • 2.6 1932 transatlantic solo flight
  • 2.7 Other solo flights

• 3 1937 World flight
  • 3.1 Planning
  • 3.2 First attempt
  • 3.3 Second attempt
  • 3.4 Departure from Lae
  • 3.5 Final approach to Howland Island
  • 3.6 Radio signals
  • 3.7 Search efforts

• 4 Disappearance theories
  • 4.1 Crash and sink theory
  • 4.2 Gardner Island hypothesis

• 5 Disappearance Myths, urban legends and unsupported claims
  • 5.1 Capture by the Japanese
  • 5.1.1 Spies for FDR
  • 5.1.2 Tokyo Rose rumor
  • 5.1.3 Saipan prison claims
  • 5.1.4 Assuming another identity

• 6 Legacy
  • 6.1 Firsts
  • 6.2 Other honors
  • 6.3 Books by Earhart
  • 6.4 Memorial flights

• 7 Popular culture

• 8 See also

• 9 References

• 10 External links

As you will also note, there is a rearrangement and revision of other sections to more closely conform to WP:Biography (although not a true guideline). FWIW Bzuk.

The above structure is clearly a good faith try at helpfully organizing the article but it would still lend undue weight to spurious tabloid myth stuff which has no relationship at all to the supportable/plausible disappearance theories. I think the entire "Disappearance Myths, urban legends and unsupported claims" section should be deleted from the article and placed in a sub-article called Amelia Earhart myths and urban legends. Gwen Gale 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you recall our joint efforts to establish a consensus for the creation of a related article dealing with the mythology surrounding this icon, it was thoroughly rebuffed by numerous editors. As stated earlier, this redesign of the sections is to consolidate some sections and to more closely conform to other biography articles. If you note the controversies that have arisen in other biographies, most notably Alexander Graham Bell, bringing up even revisionist theories was dealt with within the article. I do not think that the poorly framed and uncorroborated theories have been given undue weight, instead they have been marginalized by their close proximity to more established research findings. FWIW Bzuk 19:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

I think the tabloid stuff belongs either at the end of the article or in another article. I think the supportable theories are more helpful immediately following the historical narrative and before the legacy section. I wonder what others might say this time. Can we wait and find out? Gwen Gale 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Note my earlier request for commentary. But as before, if a change in the article was rejected previously, I do not hold out much hope for the creation of a new related "Earhart Myths" article. The main reasons for the earlier rejection was that the fascination with Amelai Earhart stems from the mysteries surrounding her last flight and disappearance. This is entirely understandable as many other historical figures have taken on a mythic semblance due to similar mysteries surrounding their demise. James Belushi, James Dean, John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe come to mind. FWIW Bzuk 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

I do understand what you're saying but I don't think a "mythic semblance" is the same as "tabloid fodder," nor do I think citing how other articles have been botched and mishandled through a consensus of PoV warriors can support lending undue weight in this one. Truth be told, the more I think about it, I believe the only encyclopedic solution here is to start a new article called Amelia Earhart myths and urban legends. The main article is already too long and skiving off the tabloid codswallop can only help. Gwen Gale 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate that a recent effort had been made to gather a consensus for the creation of a separate "Earhart Myths" article; I believe that once a legitimate effort had been made, there will probably be a revisiting of the same issues and no consensus for change, but I could be wrong. In my thinking, all of the disparate Earhart/Noonan disappearance theories are just that, theories, some with more prominence and greater believability, others that range from plausible to improbable. I tend to support the same conclusions held by Strippel, Nesbit and Long that with the range capabilities of the Electra and the juxtaposition of her last radio transmission, the enroute position placed Earhart and Noonan close to Howland Island, leaving no other viable options, other than ditching. FWIW Bzuk 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Please review WP:V, thanks. Gwen Gale 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

These conclusions are not mine, and are stated in second-hand reference sources. I simply conjecture that "Occam's razor" ("All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.") is at play and that unlikely scenarios do not often "pan out." But enough of this wonderful banter, it seems like we are the only editors concerned with the issue to date. Let's let others have a chance and I will continue our delightful parry and riposte on your "talk page" rather than taking up more space here. You can probably guess what was my sport at University and afterwards. Cheers. Bzuk 01:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

I don't think the tabloid material is encyclopedic. Gwen Gale 01:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My response- your page or mine? Bzuk 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

I don't think crashed and sunk or Gardner island are at all equivalent to the myths and urban legends. There is reasonable documented, historical and scientific support for the former two, none for the latter. Nor do I think that the available primary and secondary sources show any equivalency. For this reason I don't think that editors, following Wikipedia's written policies WP:V and WP:NPOV (especially the undue weight section of WP:NPOV), can indiscriminately represent "all" "theories" about the disappearance of AE and FN as "relevant" (the term you used on my talk page).

You also wrote:

...although historians and researchers have mainly focused on a singular theory...

This is misleading. The Gardner Island hypothesis has developed significant traction both with the public and historians and is routinely mentioned as a plausible alternative to "crashed and sunk." Although the archaeological, documented and anecdotal evidence remains circumstantial, it is overwhelming. I should add that available information on the fuel capacity and consumption of the Electra in no way "proves" that they "must" have ditched somewhere near Howland. There were post-loss signals and at the time, a general conclusion that the plane wound up in the Phoenix Islands.

Lumping the crashed and sunk or Gardner island explanations (which are the only two considered as plausible and reasonable by any informed and objective, published source I've ever heard of) with the pop-culture fantasy stuff will simply mislead readers as to what the primary and secondary sources have to say about it. Gwen Gale 10:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As it seems to me, to group together in the article all materials somehow related to disappearance theories, hypotheses and speculations, was quite a rational and reasonable solution. In such a "Section", for to separate the more or less credible theories from "myths and unsupported claims" (like "Assuming another identity" or "Taken by aliens" etc.), the header was specially added: "Myths, urban legends and unsupported claims": and i think it worked enough well. It just seems for me, in such a form the article was more "reader-friendly" or "convenient" so to speak then in it's current form, where 2 different "disappearance related sections" are present. Also, as it seems for me it would be still exagerration to say that the TIGHAR hypothesis is overwhelming. The general amount of research done by TIGHAR Group and its leaders is impressive, and deserves a respect; however, it is still worth to note that no bit of real factual proof somehow confirming the theory was ever presented. Kind regards - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"no bit of real factual proof somehow confirming the theory" of crash and sunk has ever been offered either, so that aspect has no sway here. Please review WP:V and WP:NPOV if you haven't already and cheers to you, Alex. Gwen Gale 12:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, thanks for your kind reply. I had no intention to challenge your beliefs about the TIGHAR theory or to demand from you to change your position... just wanted to point your attention to the indisputable fact of lack of any real "smoking gun" proof. This - in combination with facts arguing against the theory (like the island being visited and thoughtfully researched yet in late 30s - with no trace of AE or FN found), prompts to accept the TIGHAR theory with some reasonable amount of skepticism, i'd say. Just my opinion of course. King Regards! - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex, first, I have not been discussing my personal beliefs about anything here. Second, your statement the island being visited and thoughtfully researched yet in late 30s - with no trace of AE or FN found is simply wrong. Nikumaroro was in no way "thoughtfully researched" for Earhart evidence during the 1930s or 40s. Meanwhile, in 1940 the colonial officer on Nikumaroro radioed his superiors in Fiji to inform them he thought he'd found her skeleton. Gwen Gale 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary: two relatively viable theories/hypothesis, a number of other theories that are disputed. N'est ce pas? Bzuk 14:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Bzuk, yep, spot on. Though rather than that are disputed, I'd say which are wholly unsupported codswallop helpful only in selling downmarket books, magazines and viddies to the gullible or... unencyclopedic :)

By the bye, my only worry here is the close association of the latter with the former. For narrative balance and to skirt misleading readers through undue weight, I kinda strongly think the former should stay in the narrative (before the legacy section), the latter would be most helpful either at the end of the article or in a new sub-article (yeah, I know you say it's been talked about before). I know you'd like the article to remain "whole" and of high quality, me too, which is why I'm ok with putting the "myth" stuff at the end of the article. Gwen Gale 15:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, thanks for your kind reply.

Just for the matter of fact: your statements that my statement that "the island being visited and thoughtfully researched yet in late 30s - with no trace of AE or FN found is simply wrong", and that "Nikumaroro was in no way "thoughtfully researched" for Earhart evidence during the 1930s or 40s", are wrong.

In October, 1937, Henry E. Maude and a team of British surveyers landed on Gardner (now Nikumaroro) and conducted a full investigation of the island and lagoon. Nothing was found that would indicate AE's and FN's presence on the island.

In 1938 a joint New Zeeland and British team known as NZPAS (New Zeeland Pacific Air Survey), headed by E.A.Gibson,M.W.Hay, R.A.Wimbish, Jim Henderson and Jack Paton, landed on Gardner, and conducted a full survey (they surveyed for the airfield and studied the possibilities of use of the island for the defence purposes). Nothing was found that would somehow indicate the presence of AE or FN on the island.

In 1939, Henry Maude returned to Gardner with the first contingent of Gilbert Islands settlers; and, since then, the island was continually inhabited until 1964. A village was built, thousands of coconut palms planted, even a post office was established. (During all of these activities, nothing was found that would somehow indicate the presence of AE or FN on the island).

In the same year (1939), the US Navy Ship USS Bushnell surveyed Gardner for the US defence potential purposes; this survey included, particularly, the aerial photos and mosaics of the island (nothing concerning Earhart and Noonan was found or reported).

In 1943, the US Coast Guard built a Loran navigational station on Gardner. Vehicles, construction materials and equipment were brought ashore; and this facility operated until well after the end of the World War 2 (at least until 1947). The Coast Guard personnel who served on the island during this period, reported that every inch of the island was explored again and again - just because of there was little else to do save the evening movie (nothing related to AE and FN was ever found and reported).

Putting aside the question whether these surveys proves the absense of AE and FN on Gardner or not - the question that may be a subject of "beliefs" and "opinions" :) - i just think that these facts reveals that the statement that my previous statement (about Nikumaroro not being reseached in 30s-40s) was as if "wrong", is incorrect.

Still, i don't try to "reconvene" you in anything! - just for "keeping the record straight"... and please, i would appreciate it if you would try to avoid in future this combative manner to blame other editors in making a "wrong statements" before checking the facts. Kind Regards - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot go on with this if you think I'm being combative. Your many grammar and syntax errors seem to hint that you miss many nuances in English. I'm sorry. You do have my best wishes. Thank you. Gwen Gale 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, again: i would really appreciate it if you would be more polite and civil, less combative, and would stop at least your personal attacks and attempts to discredit your opponents instead of some factual on-topic argumentation. Yes, as a huge majority of people I can do some syntax/grammar mistakes sometimes (after all English is my third language); naturally it doesn't mean however that i can "miss" the facts clearly presented/described in English sources and texts. I still hope to see sometimes a more civil manner of discussion from your side. Best wishes - Alex V Mandel 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please stop these baseless accusations. Thank you. Only to end the possibility of any further disruption, I will no longer reply to or comment on your posts unless they further descend to the level of being worthy of a listing at WP:ANI. You do have my best wishes. Cheers. Gwen Gale 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For Maury, Bzuk, and other editors... I think, the manners of discussion of the Editor Gwen Gale are not simply unnecessarily combative but personally offending, insulting, aggressive, and generally inappropriate in serious encyclopedic discussion. And it is far not for the first time. In my opinion, it prompts some "administrative decision", if such one is possible. I would appreciate your opinions, and some actions if possible. Kind Regards - Alex V Mandel 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While I understand Gwen's problem with the theories themselves, I can't imagine any other way to present them. I would consider a two-level-two-heading structure in this case, ie, ==Crash and sink== for the "primary" theory, and another like ==Other theories== for the rest, but that's as far as I would go, and I would be perfectly happy combining them.

We have to assume that many readers coming to this article have heard of at least one of these alternatives. In fact, I think it's safe to say many visitors are likely hitting it via a google search after watching some sort of docu-tainment special on History Channel or similar. Imagine this is the case for a moment; if the sections are physically separated the reader might never even see that this is considered less likely than the crash-n-sink. If we banish it to the end, as Gwen suggests, they might not see it at all. That would be much worse that some sort of vague implication of validity that the current arrangement might suggest!

So I'm definitely on the "keep them together" side of the issue, although "how much together" I'm more than willing to talk about.

Maury 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"How much together" is my only worry. Gwen Gale 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, any major complaints with "one after the other", as outlined above? Maury 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The only disagreement is that I think they should be wholly separated (as they have been for at least many months), whilst Bzuk (whose work on this article I do overwhelmingly endorse) would like them all in a line. I think that gives undue weight to the unsupported popular myths. To be truthful, I also think that a couple of editors (in their good faith PoV) would like the Gardner island hypothesis to be more closely associated, through layout choices, with the unsupported popular myths. This is to say... "looky, first we have crashed and sunk, which everybody knows is true even if there is zero hard proof, then the Gardner island thing, which is very interesting, what with their last reported line of position and all the artifacts discovered on Nikumaroro over the past 67 years and the female skeleton of probable northern European ancestry found with a western woman's shoes and those post loss signals and everything but everybody knows the US government would have found her if she was there, followed by all the 'other' nutty stuff." Sorry to be so forward about this but there it is. Both crash and sunk and Gardner are considered as plausible and reasonable, the others are wholly unsupported, I strongly think the article should make this clear and doing so through layout/structure is the easiest and to my mind most fitting way. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said, I think it's important to keep these physically close to each other no matter how wing-nut they may be. I really think that if someone comes to this page following that theory, I think we owe it to them that they will see the "real" theories a few lines up. And it seems no one gets too upset if you can a crank a crank. So perhaps a three section layout is best, one for crashed, one for Gardiner, and one for "all the rest". Maury 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's spelled Gardner. Do you think you're familiar enough with the sources and background of this topic to be helpfully discussing it? Either way, I think your good faith suggestion would stray way too far from both the spirit and the letter of WP:V and WP:NPOV. I think the myths and urban legends should be in a wholly separate section of the article, below "Legacy," with the crashed and sunk and Gardner Island alternatives in a section immediately following the historical narrative and before "Legacy." Thanks for trying to help out and for any further thoughts you may have. All the best. Gwen Gale 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the rest of us disagree with you on the issue of the arrangement of the article. There seem to be two positions, your own, and, well, everyone else. Reading over the thread I can't find any argument supporting your position other than statements that contain some variation of "I think", which is the very definition of POV. Of course POV is perfectly natural, and expected, so in order to deal with these inevitable situations the wiki has developed a system called "consensus" to deal with it. In this case, it appears consensus has already been reached. If you have something cogent to add, please do so, but posts like the one above will do nothing to support your position. Please do not insult me again, I do not appreciate it. Maury 03:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Two regular editors who disagree with one regular editor is not a consensus. There is no consensus and I must respectfully say you are mistaken about what makes a consensus on this wiki. Moreover, you're mistaken about the use of the phrase "I think." Lastly, my position is not at all PoV. The two plausible and widely published alternatives belong in a separate section from the tabloid material, as they have been for many months with no comment from anyone until a single editor tried to mix them all into one indiscriminate section. Please review WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thanks and all the best. Gwen Gale 11:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Weighing back into the discussion and I hope this will be a succinct summation; there appears to be a move towards consensus (as defined in the modern parlance of governance as an acceptance by the majority) as to the direction of reorganization of topics. Can I suggest a compromise? Why not let an admin such as Maury who has a wide-ranging experience in editing and research, make a proposal for organizing the sections. The changes were meant to clarify the various disappearance theories and although two theories/hypothesis have led to extensive efforts to establish a definitive answer to the disappearance of Earhart/Noonan, there are a number of other theories that have arisen that at least should be considered as theories, regardless of their credibility.

I see this "Disappearance theories" as the sole "sticking point" and that the other suggested changes could be acceptable by editors interested in the Amelia Earhart article. FWIW Bzuk 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Seems that way to me too. Maury 14:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. Actually, i have nothing against Gwen's idea to save a "header" that would "warn" that some "theories" - then described below - are "Myths, urban legends and unsupported claims"... I only meant that it would be more logical to "group together", into one section, all the "disappearance theories related stuff" - as Bzuk suggested. Kind Regards - Alex V Mandel 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My only worry (disagreement with Bzuk) is the grouping, I like the headings as they are now. From an encyclopedic standpoint I'd rather see the article layout stay as it is, as it has been for months. With all due respect to Maury, along with my thanks to him for trying to help in good faith, I'd rather this not be left to him. Bzuk and I have edited together for a while now and I do listen to what Alex has to say. If I'm eeking loudly about this one little layout thing, mind, it's me and I'm happy with the article as it is so far, I don't want the layout change, is all. Cheers. Gwen Gale 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well all of this seems to be based on your worry that grouping the sections closer together would give the later undue weight. I still fail to be convinced of this. Nor do any of us suggest mixing them into a single section. But I tire of the arguments, and especially the back biting. Really, all this blather for moving a section about one page up? I am highly motivated to simply do the move and ask you to leave it there for, say, three days. Try it on for size before hitting rollback. Maury 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear you :) I know you're sincerely trying to be measured and helpful. Thanks! Meanwhile I could also say, "Ok, I am highly motivated to wait three days before hitting rollback, then start a new article called Amelia Earhart myths and urban legends and ask you to leave it alone for, say, three days. Try it on for size before putting it up for AfD." I agree the back and forth on this seems trivial but then why are we talking about it? I think it's because one good faith editor disagrees with another good faith editor about what kind of weight to give the Gardner island hypothesis relative to crash and sunk... and layout does have sway in these things. Talking about it is what the talk page is for. Gwen Gale 16:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the effort to create a new page on Earhart myths was already discussed, dissed and dismissed earlier this year. To reiterate, the only reason for proposing a change in the structure of the article was to "strengthen" the article. Please note that two theories/hypothesis have received general academic and scholarly backing whereas the other "fringe" theories have largely been dismissed. The only suggestion put forward was to discuss the many theories under the general heading of "disappearance theories" and then identify the two theories- the so-called "Crash-and-Sink" and "Gardner Island" theories/hypothesis while the other groupings of theories would be identified as part of the less-than-credible theorizing (you may recall at one time there had even been a suggestion of other worldly reasons for the Earhart/Noonan disappearance but this submission had been summarily dispatched). At this point in the back-and-forth of the discussion, an admin has suggested a possible solution to the impasse in a revision or reoganization of topics and it seems that an admin can make a "Solomon-like" decision (that's why they are paid the "big bucks"). FWIW Bzuk 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

First, we do wholly agree, as you put it, that the ...two theories/hypothesis have received general academic and scholarly backing whereas the other "fringe" theories have largely been dismissed...

With all due rerspect, I don't see how that could be "Solomon-like" since it would only implement what you've been proposing all along. I think it would weaken the article (not strengthen it) and mislead some readers. Please be aware that I think you've made this proposal in good faith and you sincerely believe it would help the article.

I see no consensus against a new article called Amelia Earhart myths and urban legends and I think that by far would be the most helpful and encyclopedic thing to do. As a "Solomon-like" compromise, I think the article layout could also be left as it is, as it has been for many months. All the best. Gwen Gale 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposal had been made earlier with the commentary still in place on this page; the results of a week-long discussion was only two supporters and four editors opposing the move. In making the original proposal for a move, I had the intention to have the article concentrate on more scholarly approach, however, others have felt that the mystique around Earhart partly stems from the mystery surrounding her disappearance and that all the sundry stories contribute to that mystique. I think we have to respect the general trend to maintain the article as a "whole."

In discussing the Earhart/Noonan disappearance, there are only theories and hypotheses with no firm evidence to substantiate any one "solution" to the mystery. However, there is already a body of evidence that supports or disproves various speculation and theories, that is all that is being addressed here. Putting a context to the theories, giving as many cited references as possible and even categorizing the theories is all that any Earhart researcher can do. FWIW Bzuk 23:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

The change you propose would in my humble opinion unhelpfully distort the context you've described above. Short of creating a new article for the unsupported and unencyclopedic popular myth material, I can also support leaving the article layout as it is, as it has been for many months. Gwen Gale 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I do not believe other editors may share your same concerns as to readers coming to a conclusion that a conspiracy theory or discredited theory would be given "undue weight," especially when a sub-heading is established that clearly notes that the theories have not been widely accepted. At present, the theories are placed in two different sections that are far apart. As was pointed out previously, other researchers have been prepared to group disappearance theories together while presenting cogent supporting documentation to support or disprove various theories, which coincidently already exists in the present article.

The main impetus for my present proposal to examine the disappearance theories as a grouping came from reading recent publications concerning the Earhart disappearance, notably the work of Paul Hoverstein and Richard Strippel. Each historian approached the many theories advanced to explain the disappearance of Earhart/Noonan as a group and explored the discoveries, evidence and contemporary record as well as the inconsistencies inherent in all the theories including the various "fringe" beliefs. Both researchers placed greater emphasis on the more reputable research based around a crash scenario either in the ocean in proximity to Howland Island or on the nearby Gardner Group. A great deal of archaeological exploration has already taken place both on land and seafloor to gather data in these locations but no definitive answers have yet been reached. However, the other theories were deciminated and although little corroboration existed other than second- and third-hand accounts, it was illustrative of the fascination that the general public has in "disappearance theories" no matter how outlandish or baseless they may seem. It is understandable that when a mystery arises concerning the demise of a famous person that a spate of conspiracy/speculative theories invariably arise.

All the other Earhart biographers who have had a holistic approach such as Doris Rich, Randall Brink and the team of Goldstein and Dillon provide background on the rumours and theories that have predominated in the years following Earhart and Noonan's final flight. They all gravitate to the "crash" scenario after examining the various claims made by others. (You will note that I am not making a distinction over whether the crash is at sea or land.) FWIW Bzuk 06:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

I think an encyclopedia entry should be structured in a way that gives the reader unambiguous and intuitive cues as to the scholarly weight of sundry popular viewpoints. In my thinking, the easiest way to do it here is to skive off the codswallop into a sub-article. The next easiest thing to do is keep the current layout.

You've done some keen writing there. You knew I'd agree with it. So why not work up a version of that for an alikely worded introduction to a "crash and sunk / Gardner Island" section? Then, perhaps we can find a layout and heading scheme which allows the pop-myth stuff to follow immediately after, but in a thoroughly disclaimed way which shows how chaveled those notions are? Gwen Gale 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Back; the weather turned nasty so I'm not on the bike any more. Looks great everyone! Maury 16:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The ONLY credible hypothesis concerning what happened to Earhart that pass the smell test (i.e. don't stink for obvious reasons) are the crash and sink (it's a big ocean) and 'Gardner Island" theories.

Gardner Island has a sever problem in the known fuel on board at take off, known weather conditions, and performance characteristics of the L-10E. The biggest problem is statements made by Earhart to the Itasca.

Occam's razor argues strongly for a ditching.

The other theories have sever flaws and should be treated as their fanciful assumptions and questionable evidence requires.Mark Lincoln 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)