Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 11

What this talk page is for

I have a worry that discussions on this talk page are veering too far into general discussions and personal opinions about the topic rather than ways in which the article can be helped through independent and verifiable citations. Some editors may wish to review what a Wikipedia talk page is for. Thanks and all the best. Gwen Gale 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, if your running out of facts and into trouble, why, don't whine about it!!!!! We are discussing the most disputed parts of the article. Do you want me to fix the factual errors I pointed out in the Gardner Island hypothesis Gwen? I can make the changes and have the source material available as published by TIGHAR in "Finding Amelia", to document it.Mark Lincoln 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you write that stuff Gwen? It is not "original research' to repeat half-truths and outright distortions. It is just sloppy research.Mark Lincoln 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, thanks. Gwen Gale 12:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to fix the factual misrepresentations by omission in the Gardner Island Hypothesis Gwen?Mark Lincoln 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to provide a citation from a reliable and independent, published secondary source which directly asserts "factual misrepresentations by omission in the Gardner Island Hypothesis." Gwen Gale 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You want 'independent and verifiable citations' Gwen? Try the "Epilogue" page (241) of "Finding Amelia" by Ric Gillespie where he publishes Gallagher's telegram to Resident Commissioner Barley. The statement that he told Barley that he thought the skeleton was Earhart's is clearly a misrepresentation Gwen. As is the omission of the fact that within the box was a "sextant being old fashioned. . ."

That telegram is the entire foundation for the Gardner Island Hypothesis. With no likely Amelia Skeleton 'found' and an 'old fashioned' sextant in the accompanying box, that is a very flimsy foundation. amelia was so cool!!!!

If I am so damned determined to violate a NPOV then why have I let it stand without challenge Gwen?

Or does reading Ric "the head of TIGHAR" Gillespie's book carefully constitute "Original Research"?Mark Lincoln 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR has nothing to say about carefully reading anything. Gwen Gale 14:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would endorse what Gwen says about the purpose of this talk page. It is for discussing article, not theories. It is for proposing new text, discussing specifically that text and whether it is supported by cites, and objecting to text that isn't. It is not this talk page's place, nor is it our place as Wikipedians, to be discussing merits of theories. We report what other reliable sources say, not what our personal views are. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is a collection of highly unreliable , unquantified books a 'reliable source' by Wikipedia definition ? It is in the sciences usage to ignore nonsense theories in lieu of citation. Desertfax (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax

The 'Gardner' theory originally depends on the Howland sunrise position line's southward leg pointing the more or less in the direction of Gardner Island / Kiribati at a distance of 408 mls off, and appeared after a tangled book had been published on the subject.In that writing a 'navigator' "falls from his chair" when he discovers that the Howland position line skims over Gardner. Over such distance the position circle which the line is part of, considerably declines from that line. That does not mean that Noonan was unable to have the aircraft steered to Gardner/Nikumaroro by consulting his charts, but when flying the [circular] position line he would have made the aircraft pass far north-eastwards of Gardner on the circle of equal altitude . The position line Howland to Gardner statement, together with the too great distance is the laesio enormis of the "Nikumaroro" theory. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC) desertfax84.80.66.78 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax

Please see WP:OR. This talk page is not for discussing theories about AE, it is for discussing reliable sources which can be cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer : agreed, but not all contributors have the correct basics of information on the subject to their disposal.84.80.66.78 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)esertfax .If you quote an URL a copy of EJN mentioned can be scanned and posted by e-mail to you for reference.Desertfax (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but the facts mam

There seems to be a misunderstanding that because I have and state opinions and arguments on the discussion page I am determined to 'slant' the article against the various speculative theories.

I have not edited those theories. I have stated my opinion that they are part of the story and that they might best be written by people who hold those positions. Thus if I am guilty of violating a NPOV, it is in favor of those theories by omission.

Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed. I have stated my position, and proven it by what I have not done.

Do the various alternative views need to be rebutted in the article as they by inclusion in the article rebut what has been the generally - overwhelmingly - accepted view for 70 years?

I can whip out the books and start blasting, but I do not think it is the "Blasting Conspiracy Theories about Amelia Earhart's Disappearance Article."

Some folks will not be happy until Bolam's secret diary turns up, the cave on Gardner Island that AE and Noonan hid the Electra in is discovered, or Elvis Yamamoto returns from Shangri La Prefect in his UFO and confesses to offing them on Saipan.

I have no "pet" theory, I do see what has been the accepted "most probable cause" for the loss of the aircraft and occupants for over 70 years as just that and nothing more.Mark Lincoln 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand you're writing here in good faith Mark. However, this is not a forum. If you want to include your interpretations in the article, you must back them up with verifiable citations from independent sources which directly support your assertions. Moreover, you cannot assemble citations for the purpose of constructing your own interpretation. If you dispute the conclusions of a cited source in the article, you must cite a specific criticism of that conclusion in a verifiable source. Please read WP:OR thoroughly if you haven't done and no, with all due respect to your helpful intentions, this public wiki is not Dragnet, it is Wikipedia, WP:V. Cheers. Gwen Gale 14:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen. I take it that you are just dense. I have supplied verifiable sources for what I have contributed. You are the one who insists that your opinion should be taken as fact, not I. Is Ric Gillespie's "Finding Amelia" unaccetable to you? Why? Because at the end he was honest enough to put the whole telegram in, even though he must have understood that someone reading it carefully would catch the part about the sextant in the box? Why is that reference so threatening to you that you wig out Gwen? I think now that the other editors have a verifiable reference - and it is hard to claim that Mr. Gillespie is Hostile to the Gardner Island hypothesis - and if you suffered from a degree of intellectual honesty, you would alter the article to reveal the extreme doubts expessed in the telegram that the skeleton was Earharts, and include the information that the sextant box contained a sextant that Noonan could not have used for navigating an airplane. I will not change it Gwen. I am not going to make a big stink over it. Are you going to be honest and maintain a NPOV Gwen?75.50.215.92 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Mark Lincoln

No need to go on about it, please provide the citations, is all. As for your kind and helpful question, Why is that reference so threatening to you that you wig out Gwen? thank you for trying to help me cope with my many and sundry emotions, however there are no worries. I am neither threatened nor wigged out by your posts. Meanwhile, you might want to have a shufti at WP:NPA if you haven't already. All the best. Gwen Gale 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"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. It would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,

(b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10,

(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."

- Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

Is that an 'interpretation' by me Gwen? Is that "Original Research" on my part Gwen?Mark Lincoln 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, the person I see lacking citations is you. You start spouting OR, and OP, but where are your citations to justify allowing this line to stand as 'proof' that Amelia was found: "For example, in 1940, Gerald Gallagher, a British colonial officer (also a licensed pilot) radioed his superiors to inform them that he believed he had found Earhart's skeleton, along with a sextant box, under a tree on the island's southeast corner." - Wikipedia

How can we say "he believed he had found Earhart's skeleton" Gwen? He clearly didn't. He stated "a very slight chance." A long, long way from believing he had.

Why do you think the folks at Tighar usually forget to mention the sextant found in the box Gwen? Do you wish to be honest in the Gardener Island section and state that the sextant box contained an 'old fashioned' sextant that would have been useless to Noonan?

Or will you just leave a lie by omission in place?

I won't fiddle with it Gwen, it is yours, do as you see fit.

I keep any 'speculation' and 'opinion' to these discussions and stick to what can be known for the article.

Just because I have plenty of books to reference - including one by Mr. TIGHAR himself, Ric Gillespie, doesn't mean you can reject my references without having checked them. Nor does it mean you can keep screaming "no references." Just because you refuse to read them. Had you bothered to read Fred Noonan's memo which discussed the problems he had with RDF bearings? I cited it Gwen.

Have you read Lockheed Report 487, specifically the chart prepared by Kelly Johnson showing "Recommended Flight Proceedure" "Data for Obtaining Optimum Range." ? Are you suggesting the detailed instructions written for Earhart to follow when trying to achive optimum range should be disregarded just because it is source material? Would it help to say it has been published on the CD accompanying Gillespie's book, "Finding Amelia"? Is that book not a valid source of reference?

The Gardner Island section states "Earhart and Noonan may have flown for two-and-a-half hours along the standard line of position Earhart noted in her last transmission received at Howland." What is a "standard line of position"? Damned if I know. A "Line of Position" is just a line. It expresses a line on a map which is related to the position of a celestial object at a particular moment in time. Chances are you are at some point on or near that LOP when you took the sighting. There are no "standard" LOPs.

I am not suggesting a change Gwen. But at least I have a clue.

You accuse me of 'picking' my references - I guess because you don't like them. I think I have added signifcantly to the article. And my sources are the source of that. I didn't speculate or opine, about the inherient inaccuracies of RDF, I cited the work of Fred Noonan and a history of aircraft navigation up to 1941. I didn't give an opinion of Fred Noonan by myself, or cite barroom gossip. I cited one of the top Captains with Pan Am at the time as to what Noonan was doing and how just months before the flight.

You favor an opinion for which not one single piece of evidence exists. Ok by me, but do not scream 'no references' when I have cited plenty. And I was not able to cite Grooch on Noonan and Wright on aircraft navigation BECAUSE I had them, had read them, and understood where they could assist the reader in undestanding the article. It might interest you that the guy who does the radio analysis for TIGHAR also cites an old "Radio Amatuer's Handbook" as a source for information on antenna designs and propagation. . .

I keep my opinion out of what I edit. Do you?75.50.215.92 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Some folks think a 28 year old British civil servant (and licensed pilot) on Gardner who found a woman's skull associated with European artifacts 3 years after Earhart's disappearance and thought it might be hers, would likely have been exceedingly circumspect and cautious in how he, as a responsible colonial officer in the British foreign office, communicated that opinion to his superiors in Fiji but whatever. If you knew more about how British civil servants working for the FO dealt with each other during the 1930s, you might understand what I mean.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Your apparent assertion that Gardner was so thoroughly searched in 1937 that AE and FN could not possibly have landed there is not supported, either by citations provided by you on this talk page or by any other sources I'm aware of. If you knew more about Nikumaroro (never mind its tide-swept NW reef flat in 1937, looming wreckage of the SS Norwich City and all), you might understand what I mean.

Meanwhile for all I know they wound up 5 miles below the surface of the Pacific within 100 NM of Howland. Happily, my personal opinion doesn't matter here and neither does yours. It's all about building articles from verifiable sources, WP:V, WP:RELIABLE, WP:WEIGHT, that's the pith.

You're new here. Welcome. Your use of the terms "spouting" and "dense" in describing my attempts to help you understand WP policy is, I think, not helpful. For the third time, I respectfully ask you to thoroughly review (not skim) WP:NPA. You do have my best wishes, but you're the one making the assertions here and unless you can provide meaningful citations to support those many assertions, I'm afraid you're using this talk page as a forum, which is not supported by the written policies of this public wiki. Thanks. Gwen Gale 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, for the third time. My citation is the complete telegram frrom Gallagher to Barley as published in Ric Gillespie's book "Finding Amelia" on page 241. What is yours?

I cite something twice and you ignore it both times. That is not a lack of citation on my part.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

As you have not cited any source that Gallagher "believed he had found Earhart's skeleton," and refuse to consider my specific citation and twice posting the entire telegram which makes it clear he did not believe that.

This is tiring Gwen. You go right ahead toss in a third claim I have no citations.75.50.215.92 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

Folks, I said enough, and rose to Gwen's bait. I intend to go work on the Air Racing article as it badly needs a transfusion from my library. I am to young to be a member of Quiet Birdmen, but I will play one for a while on the internet.

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Lincoln, you better be not exited, we all know that all so called archaeologically found artifacts on an island 405 st.miles away from Howland have so far shown to be fake. The aluminum sheet from the same island, e.g. , so called to origin from the Electra, has the rivets lined up in a way not compliant with the aircraft's construction drawings. The fake conclusions always come to light after a sponsored 'expedition' has taken place.84.80.66.78 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax

This talk page is for the discussion of reliable sources, not your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Gale,

The main body of the Amelia Earhart Wiki article is very good and it is perfectly understood that you are in search of reliable sources. But this latter goal turns upside down if sources having repeatedly been unmasked as unreliable on the subject remain undeleted .84.80.66.78 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax.

The article quotes the last known position 800 mls , 1300 km off Lae near [27 mls] Nukumanu Isl. The exact distance was 847 mls ,1363 km [source : recomputation of fix [0719:30 GMT] by H.O.208 Nav.Table used by Noonan and by direct spherics . Article European Journal of Navigation, July 2008 , 'Where to Search for the Earhart Lockheed Electra'].Desertfax (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC) desertfax.

Dear Mr.Lincoln, a long discussion on 'findings' from the Gardner beaches is unnecessary : the aluminum sheet has non compliant[elsewhere mentioned] riveting , the shoe measure is wrong , the sextant box has been found at the root of every palmtree along the Pacific, mostly with a rattling empty gin bottle and an antenna never existed along the aircraft's belly , let be that it would have been teared off.Desertfax (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax

Mr.Lincoln , the so called Gallagher telegram is not an issue concerning Earhart or Noonan, it has been used to support the Gardner Island theory, not complying with reasonable supposition.84.80.66.78 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Desertfax (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)desertfax

Enough said

If there is an editor who insists upon inserting opinion into the factual body of the article and that is ok with the rest of the editors then I am not going to have anything further to say.

Just one observation: It would be wrong for the Article to not state that there were report of radio signals which were felt at the time might have - even did -originated from AE.

A great deal of effort was made to search the Phoenix Islands in no small part because of possible radio intercepts from that area.

It would be wrong for the Article to state that there WERE signals definetly heard from AE. The reasons for this are simple. She could not transmit from the water and all possible places for her to land were searched and the airplane never found.

There will always be grey areas. The Article caters to those who wish to see black cats in the grey areas by expending electrons on the various alternative theories. Those who favor those theories should ensure that their opinions are (in proportion) expressed in the appropriate section.

What would do harm to the veracity of the story is to have facts misrepresented or suppressed by opinion in the factual body of the article.

It is up to you guys.

I have nothing more to say75.50.215.92 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

You haven't provided any citations. Gwen Gale 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"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. It would appear that

(a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,

(b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10,

(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel.

Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City."

- Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

For one last time, OK?75.50.215.92 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Mark Lincoln

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

In reviewing the latest revisions, it appears that there are citations but the format used was inconsistent so that the reference source did not always appear first, making it seem that the note or quote provided was the source. I have corrected the format of the citations to reflect the source and additional information follows. FWIW Bzuk 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Does anyone else out there have the book and CD "Finding Amelia"?Mark Lincoln 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have it on order. Gwen Gale may have it. FWIW Bzuk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

I have had it for a while, but just got around to reading it. I was wondering what would be the best way to cite materials included on the CD? What about when they have created a link on the CD to later material on their web site? That CD has a wealth of information some of which, I know from personal experience, was very hard to track down. One question which I had not considered but seems to have been raised recently is what we used to call "Source Material." The "Lockheed Report 487" written by the aircraft designers Clarence "Kelly" Johnson and W.C. Noland for AE is probably the definitive source on what techniques had to be followed to achieve optimum range/duration in the L-10E. If I cite it, am I guilty of "Original Research"? What if I cite the report by he Senior Aviator on the Colorado to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, about his search of Gardner Island? If these have been used by the authors of books cited in the AE article, is it still "Original Research" if someone cites their source material?Mark Lincoln 19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia you do not have the freedom of a Ric Gillespie or an Elgin Long to interpret sources and synthesize your own conclusions (original research) like they did. If you wish to do that, write a book and get it published by a reliable publisher, then cite it here. It's original research if you assemble and cite these sources in support of an interpretive conclusion of your own (WP:OR). On the other hand, if you directly cite what these sources say about what folks said or did, or what an aircraft or a radio was like, or did, or could do, that's WP:V. So far as how to technically cite something from the FA DVD, listing the primary source document title, page number if any within that PS and the DVD itself should do it. Gwen Gale 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not Gwen. Any such analysis has been confined to discussion, not editing.

Have you checked page 241 (epilogue) of Gillespies book?Mark Lincoln 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, this talk page is for discussing edits. You have yet to provide a single citation to support any of your assertions, which if they are not proposed edits, do not belong here under Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, this is my proposal for an edit, although I have stated I did not want to do it. Gillespie quoted the text of the telegram and it shows that the man who reported the skeleton thought it a very small possibility it was Earharts. The "Gardner Island" portion of the article should be edited to make it clear that the man responsible for calling attention to the skeleton doubted it was Earharts, that the sextant box was not evidence one could connect to AE and Noonan.Mark Lincoln 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Gwen, my citation, once again is Gillespie, "Finding Amelia", page 241. Why can't you just look it up Gwen? Why do you just repeat like an automat that: "You have yet to provide a single citation to support any of your assertions, which if they are not proposed edits, do not belong here under Wikipedia policy." I have provided MANY citations Gwen. What about you?

Would I be out of line to ask for a vote on the issue of whether the evidence supports the assertion that Amelia Earhart's skeleton and Fred Noonan's sextant box were found on Gardener Island and was so reported by Gerald B. Gallagher, Officer-in-Charge, Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, to Resident Commissioner Barley, Gilvert and Ellice Islands Colony, September 23, 1940, and quoted in Gillespie, "Finding Amelia," page 241, "Epilogue," or it supports that assertion the author of that telegram doubted the skeleton was Earharts and considered the sextant box "old fashioned"?

This seems silly, but Gwen clearly rejects as a valid citation what Mr. Gillespie considered important enough to end his book with, and does so categorically, without consideration, or knowledge.Mark Lincoln 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already responded to your remark about GG's characterization of the bones.

Meanwhile a vote cannot change original research into a supported assertion. If you have (or can find) a citation in an independent and verifiable source which has interpreted Gallagher's telegram as meaning that in his heart of hearts he didn't think the bones belonged to Earhart (never mind if he felt that way, why he would have even bothered to mention the possibility at all, it's not like he'd been sent there to find AE and FN) then by all means, please bring it up here.

I am only responding to your assertions as they come, and am taking them as proposed edits. Hence, since you're the one making the assertions on this talk page, it's up to you to support them with citations (WP:V, please read it thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks). If your assertions are interpretive original research, you have the freedom of an author like Elgin Long or Ric Gillespie to put them in a book and get it published. If you try to include your personal opinion in the article, it will likely be removed as original research (WP:OR, please read it thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks).

Again, as you have now been asked repeatedly, please try to tone it down and be less combative with other editors (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, please read these thoroughly if you haven't yet, thanks). All the best. Gwen Gale 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Differences in interpretation

The Gallagher telegram you pasted into the talk page doesn't support any assertion you've made so far. If you interpret that telegram as meaning Gallagher did not find Earhart's remains, that is original research. Gwen Gale 19:38, 6 September 2007

Gwen the article states that he believed he had found Earhart. The telegram clearly indicates that he did not believe he had, but there was 'very slight chance," that it might be Earhart.

The other editors can read it for themselves.

"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. It would appear that (a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman, (b) Shoe was a woman's and probably size 10, (c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 (stenciled) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discover is related to wreck of the "Norwich City." - Text of the telegram from Gerald Gallagher to Resident Commissioner Barley, as published: Gillespie, Ric, "Finding Amelia," Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press, 2006, page 241, ISBN 1-59114-319-5.

That is not 'original research' at all Gwen.

It is the man's own words to his boss. He did not think he had found Earhart. Your position that he did think he found Earhart is far closer to what Jimmy Wales was speaking of would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Moreover Gwen, it is published in a book written by the head of TIGHAR, who it seems cares more for veracity than you do. Thus it does not meet the criteria of unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

It takes a totally "novel narrative or historical interpretation" to turn "Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be the remains of Amelia Earhard," (Galligher to Barley) into him believing he had found Earhart, and thence to the positive assertion it was Earhart.

Gwen, I think you are a obstreperous and determined to bias the article as Matt was.Mark Lincoln 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lying? Mark, I've have tried to help you understand how things work here. Meanwhile, you are now in violation of WP:NPA. Please stop. Thank you. Gwen Gale 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, ML. Binksternet 22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, flame thrower off.

When I see someone removing lines from an article - not ones inserted by me - simply on the basis that it is their opinion that there was no evidence any search was that thorough, I find it odd they do not cite that statement. It is Especially odd when it is clear that person is not acquainted with either the source material or scholarship on that point. I find it most curious when two words from an entire sentence are used to create the appearance that the author meant exactly the opposite of what he wrote as was done with Lt. Lambrecht's report. Which I might add IS the source material on that search, and used by many authors on the subject. I also find it very curious that someone would so misrepresent the telegram of Galligher as to make it appear that he thought he had found AE's skeleton. It is also annoying to have someone insist that providing the entire text of his telegram - with a citation as to it's source, and acceptance by other scholars - is "original research' and not a citation at all. One does not - in my estimate - come to a scholarly awareness of a subject by apparently reading a web page and refusing to even consider what the head of the organization that puts up that web page considered source material important enough to quote in toto in his book, a valid reference. Mr. Gillespie and I might disagree on points of analysis, but he does try to be thorough and honest.Mark Lincoln 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One other point. I see the page developing. Juices are flowing, book pages are flipping. People are contributing. I agree, this is discussion is not a forum. It is a discussion page about the Amelia Earhart Article. However many electrons we are expending in shooting it out, it seems to have had a stimulating effect on contributors. As I pointed out to someone we have a far better understanding of what we know now than we did 40 years ago. This is because for a number of reasons - most of all controversy. A great deal of scholarship has been done on Amelia Earhart and her disappearance in the last 20 years. I have done NO 'original research' on AE if it means coming up with new explanations, or novel theories. I have gone over 40 years from strongly questioning the accepted knowledge to having accepted it. This does not mean that I am not eager for new knowledge. The discovery of the Collopy Letter was a great thing. I had to reconsider a number of things because of it. Perhaps we will have a 'final answer,' some day. I doubt it.Mark Lincoln 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited material which is questioned or disputed may be removed. WP:V, WP:OR. Cheers. Gwen Gale 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gwen is a broken record, record, record. I have citations Gwen, what about you? I even read the Wikipedia concerning "Original Material."

Turns out your description seems at variance. Citing source material IS NOT original research. Nor is citing source material cited by other authors.

You just keep playing your broken record Gwen. The rest of us will continue to make valid and cited contributions to the article.Mark Lincoln 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I take this taunting as a personal attack. Given that, where did I ever say you can't cite source material? Erm and oh, by the bye that's original research, not "original material." Cheers anyway. Gwen Gale 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gwen. I trained as an engineer and minored in history. I never was a fiction writer, and seldom read it. The reason I seldom read fiction is that I find so much more of the real world in fact. I have what many would see as an unreasonable attachment to facts, engineering, reality and non-fiction. You have a nice evening.Mark Lincoln 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I read mostly non-fiction myself, have for donkeys' years. I deal with engineers professionally almost every day. Moreover, there are a few in my family. Why did you bring up fiction? Have you been talking to a little birdy? Thanks and have a nice evening yourself. Gwen Gale 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Birdy talk is cheep. I spend much of my time reading technical manuals and such. That is seldom cheap, nor is it usually pleasant reading. I never could write fiction. I just don't have a good fantasy in my life. Well, not since I was 15 and had a copy of Playboy. . . Mark Lincoln 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

TMs, I've written a few. Gwen Gale 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a guilty party. My motto is "when everything else fails, read the manual." Actually not. I usually read it at least three times. Once without trying to comprehend, just to find out what is there. The second time to make sense of it. The third is to figure out what part of it applies to my problem. My most important 'research facility" is the back yard hammock.Mark Lincoln 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

---

It is now a juncture where all editors should take a deep breath and look seriously at a "cool off" period. Everyone is acting in "good faith" but emotions around a controversial issue can get heated. The "talk page" of an article is intended to provide a forum to talk about the article, let's keep that in mind. FWIW, I am about to archive some of the discussions as we are running at 230 kb, IMHO, waaaay beyond the usual file size. Bzuk 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Evaluation for A-Class

I would recommend waiting for any effort to have this article reevaluated. There is supposed to be a serious history of the search for AE coming out this month. As this would be an account about the search, not necessarily tied to any authors personal theory of where she ended up, it might be very helpful to our efforts.Mark Lincoln 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I entirely agree, as one of the major elements to address is "stability" which until recently was manifest but now the article will have to work out all contenious issues and achieve a consensus-driven appraisal by all editors who have significantly contributed to the development of the Amelia Eahart article. BTW, my intention was actually to recommend the article as a "Good Article" candidate. FWIW Bzuk 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Each author of a 'theory' book has had reasons to shade the coverage of the search. An author dedicated to covering the search might well make an important contribution. I don't know what the order of march to Wiki-article Sainthood is. You guys will have to take care of that.Mark Lincoln 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not seen any serious search attempt as yet, Oct.6,2008. It is known since 1996 [publication] that no other land point than Howland could be reached with the 1912 GMT fuel reserves, special Av gas included. Desertfax (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Desertfax

Chilling revelations

I typed "Original Research" into the search bar of the Wikipedia.

It returned the following definition: "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form."

Citing source material is not 'original research unless it fulfills the conditions of the second sentence, "to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form." Thus citing source material used by other authors in "summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research," is NOT original research unless it is used to present a novel concept or knowledge.

The charge of "Original Research" is not a cure-all for facts that one does not like. Nor is someone who cites source material guilty. Especially if that source material is used by other authors which have already made it part of the body of knowledge on the subject. Most certainly we cannot exclude a scholar's quotation and attribution of source material under the definition of the Wikipedia.

Controversy is not necessarily an evil - that is to say destructive - thing.

I will continue to cite Mr. Gillespie, and the source materials he has used. I will also continue to cite source material used by other authors.

How can we evaluate the veracity of those authors we cite unless we occasionally compare their statements with their sources?

Mr. Gillespie was honest enough to end his book with a citation which a romantic reader could read one way and in which a critical reader could find quite different meaning. If he was dishonest he would have not quoted it at all, for he is a proponent of the Gardner Island Hypothesis - unless he was a fool, and I have read nothing in his book to make me think that.Mark Lincoln 00:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrast and perception

I spent almost 20 years of my life profoundly dependent upon an understanding of color, perception and contrast to make my living. I did lots of high resolution scanning of photographs, as well as color correcting and retouching them. I was using PhotoShop before it became a common concept (PS 2.0).

Someone removed reference to the colors of the Electra and it not being seen on Gardner Island. In page 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2 and 3 of his report Lt. Lambrecht reported that "Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll. . . (his elipsis) a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coranodo's silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms."

It is clear that an airplane mostly colored silver (but as I understand it also with orange on the top of the wings) would present a most striking contrast to the island or it's surrounding waters. What was it about the mention of the aircraft (indisputably silver) that cause the reference to it not being found? I am not rushing to replace it. But I do ask why the idea of a silver airplane not being found on a mostly green Island, or mostly beige (above water) or blue (underwater) reef or green Island that made it necessary to remove it? Why in a natural world of curves and fractals would not a harsh silver and angular airplane stand out?

I am not using my 'experience" at color correction as "original research" or "qualification" for an entry in the article. At what point do the rules of Wikipedia overrule those of common sense?Mark Lincoln 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was bright unpainted aluminium (silver) with orange bands here and there. If they landed on the vast, tide swept NW reef flat and the Electra got knocked about by the rising tides before Lambrecht got there for the overflight, the partially submerged aircraft's proximity to the looming wreckage of the SS Norwich City could have easily caused searchers to muddle it with debris from the ship (never mind the Electra would have been more or less but a speck in comparison) [1]. Oh and the reef flat is not green, it's light brown and polished aluminium reflects light which is to say, at certain angles it could have taken on the same colour as the coral and blended right in with reef, waves and wreckage. Lastly, Nikumaroro is a lot bigger than it looks. Gwen Gale 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I might add that from almost the earliest arrival of Gilbertese colonists (along with Gallagher) in late 1938, there were rumours of aircraft wreckage on the island. Children were told to stay away from it, the stories sometimes related that the skeletons of a man and a woman were somehow involved, the Gilbertese made all kinds of stuff out of scavenged Alcoa aircraft aluminium and at least one living witness who was raised there as a child says she saw bits of airplane wreckage out on the reef flat several times. Gwen Gale 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding - and I have seen NO photograph which shows it, that it had orange upon the top of the wings inset from the edges as was the pattern used by PAA. Under any circumstances such would be quite visible. If they landed on the reef they could not have sent messages. The reef is shown in photos from Gillespies book and it shows quite distinct differences in depth. (the density of the photo varies with the depth of the water). The chances of the Electra landing in shallow water with the gear down and not flipping over are slim, a conventional gear, know known rudely as a "tail dragger" is very prone to nosing over when undue breaking or drag is induced (witness AE flipping her Vega at NAS Norfolk some years before), the chances of it landing on such an uneven surface while exposed are equally slim.

.:::Rumors are worth about 10 cents at any fact swap meet.Mark Lincoln 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bright aluminum should have stood in sharp contrast to eight years of rust and growth on a shipwreck. The sun reflecting off the waves, though; that would have been tough competition for shiny metal at certain angles of viewing. One would expect that searchers in aircraft would have criss-crossed the island, lessening the likelihood of viewing angle phenomena messing with their results. BTW, Gilbertese folk must have guessed what the curious foreigners wanted to hear. Did they ever take a researcher out to see the remaining plane bits or did they show off their collection of silvery metal Electra remnants? Binksternet 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about more than rumours here and Gilbertese kids were told by their Gilbertese parents to stay away from the wreckage and they gave these parently warnings without a European in sight. Whatever might have been on that tide-swept reef couldn't be found by 1992. Moreover, Nikumaroro is a much bigger and far more complicated place than it appears to be from a satellite photo or a map. Everything you brought up is reasonable and possible and has been deeply and thoughtfully discussed by hundreds of researchers but given the wide range of documented evidence and artifacts, the possibilities you raise don't eliminate the possibility of the wreckage having been there. The article cites the Gardner Island hypothesis not as fact, but as a hypothesis which is widely cited as credible. Our personal opinions can't go in the article. Only the interpretations of writers in verifiable, published sources can go in the article according to policies like WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Cheers. Gwen Gale 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As a number of editors have already said, all this musing about the possibility of the Electra crashing on Gardner (Nikumaroro) is fine on the discussion page because it is relevant to topics already established in the main body of the article. The original statements that were honed after a long period of editing and discussion were that two Earhart/Noonan disappearance theories predominate with researchers and historians. These theories involve crashing at sea in close proximity to Howland Island or on land at Gardner Island. Other theories do not have the same support from Earhart scholars. FWIW Bzuk 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Helpfully said, Bzuk. Though after a few dozen kilobytes, uncited musing can easily be taken as proposed edits expressing only original research. The Gardner Island hypothesis runs much deeper than the summary in the article (which I think is of a helpful length and need not necessarily be expanded): It seems to me that some editors have started off by "arguing" against the limited, superficial summary of the GIH carried in the article without understanding that their questions have been addressed at length in the hypothesis itself and that the article is only citing published sources for the purpose of encyclopedic summary. I don't think this talk page is the place for general discussion and debate of the topic, but only for discussing how specific, verifiable sources might be used to make the article more helpful to readers and... I humbly suggest WP policy wholly supports what I'm saying:

Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the m:Wikibate proposal.)

All the best! Gwen Gale 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)