Talk:Fred Noonan

Celestial navigation

I've put back "celestial" navigation skills to differentiate this method from the "radio" navigation they planned on using once they were in the vicinity of Howland. Noonan was an expert in "celestial", and apparently did get them to within miles of Howland, however it was the failure of the "radio navigation" element that thwarted their final approach.

Probably (European Journal of Navigation , vol.6 no2 , July 2008) the use of the ship´s sextant (which he also used when flying with PanAm) to obtain a sunrise fix in the roads of Howland ,after having used the air (bubble) sextant the evening before to fix the position near the Nukumanu islands , triggered in first instance a hidden time error (false local hour angle)by which Howland did not run in sight at ETA. In second resort the crippled radio communications and RDF failure configured the laesio enormis.80.56.50.56 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Importance to aviation

Noonan's importance in the aviation industry is as the navigator who mapped several commercial routes throughout the Pacific for Pan Am during the 1930s. His apparent demise as Amelia Earhart's navigator is noteworthy but not central to his contribution to aviation, and in my opinion it would be misleading to mention his famous association with her in the first line of the article. Wyss 03:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Birth certificate

According to TIGHAR's website, the Noonan born in Illinois was Fred C. Noonan. They believe that Fred J. Noonan was born in Norwich, England. If this is true, and it turns out that Noonan perished on Gardner Island, then this would be ironic, because the name of the ship that was wrecked there was the SS Norwich.

In around 1998 a TIGHAR researcher/member did find a birth certificate for a Frederick Joseph Noonan born July 14, 1891 in Norwich, England. It's also true that there's a birth certificate in existence for a Fred C. Noonan born in Warren Co., Illinois in 1899 (almost certainly not the navigator, for a few reasons). The commonly accepted date and place of birth for the Pan Am navigator Frederick Joseph Noonan, is still April 4, 1893 in Cook County, Illinois, but there's no US birth certificate. I'll look into this a bit more. Re the Norwich City, yes, it could be ironic. I've also long had a "funny" feeling that if Noonan landed on Gardner, he may very well have been aware of the Norwich City's earlier fate and had likely even seen her in service when he was serving on merchant ships. Wyss 23:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• There's strong evidence Noonan stated in a voter registration application in Louisiana (1930) that he was born April 4, 1893 in Cook County, Illinois. This also fits more reliably with his maritime records in the US national archives. Wyss 00:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A baptismal entry confirms that he was born Frederick Joseph Noonan in Chicago april 4 1893.(Jackie Ferrari 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

Another irony is that the Frederick C(rescent) Noonan mentioned above actually sailed on the same ship as Fred Noonan (the IRIONA).(Jackie Ferrari 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

I have put Fred Noonan's genealogy onto the Noonan Family website. (Jackie Ferrari 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

• Jackie, what is the URL for that website? Tostie14 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-nickname "JoJo"

I have never come across Noonan as being referred to as JoJo. I wonder if the author might clarify this by providing a reference? (Jackie Ferrari 19:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

I've also read reams of material about FN, have never seen this nickname and was startled to notice it here. Moreover, I can't find even a shred of support for this and have removed it pending a reliable citation. Gwen Gale 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway it seems to have been added by an anon IP which has been warned in the past about vandalism and is responsible for serial additions to pop culture articles, many of which seem more than dubious to me. Too bad this wasn't spotted earlier, the dodgy nickname's already been cloned onto dozens of scrapper sites across the web. Gwen Gale 03:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling nitpick

The boson is a subatomic particle. The term 'bosun' is not included in most dictionaries as it is considered slang. The properly spelled rating is "Boatswain's Mate." 67.128.188.29Don Granberry.

Webster's 1913 edition defines boson as a boatswain with no hint of any deprecation. However a couple of modern dictionaries I looked at don't list this contraction of boatswain as boson, but as bosun and there's already a redirect of Bosun's mate to Boatswain so I've changed the article text to follow these leads. I must also say that in my experience the term bosun's mate is heard far more often than boatswain's mate but nonetheless your comment has helped point out a definite spelling issue in the article, deriving I believe, from the original source which does use the apparently archaic spelling boson's mate. Gwen Gale 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

from MY experience in the US Coast Guard.. it's real simple, Gwen. it's SPELLED, 'boatswain's mate' , but pronounced? said, heard as... 'bosun's mate'.. And even, in the course of conversation.. 'Boats'. 2600:1700:A760:C10:5443:BD0:1D93:9CA (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

cite requests

I'm not aware of any content disputes concerning this article, so I removed the cite requests because their presence could imply a wider dispute, for which there is no evidence, or a certain PoV, which is so far unasserted here much less supported here. If an editor wishes to add some completed citations, wonderful! Moreover, if an editor would like to dispute any contents in the article, I suggest discussing it here on the talk page, or editing content directly into the article narrative with supporting citations from reliable secondary citations. Gwen Gale 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Commemt

Gwen, those notes are there to identify reference sources- this is a typical marker. Put them back and I will start to edit the page accordingly. Check any other page and you will see the same markers- there were no reference sources given in this original article and for it to be considered a fully-researched work, there has to be citations given. Besides in your haste, you have also removed all editing including grammar, spelling and other edits. You have also removed the reference sections. IMHO, this is excessive reverting not editing. Bzuk 21:26 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. If you want to add some citations, please do so. If you were concerned about losing legitimate additions you shouldn't have flooded the article with empty format markers. Gwen Gale 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, did you think I don't know what a {{fact}} marker is? Gwen Gale 21:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not what I was saying, I indicated the use of the {{fact}} marker is typical and if you look at a page I am currently editing- the Convair B-36, you will see that the use of this citation request is not "flooding" the article, it merely indicates where the article should identify its sources. Its use does not indicated a challenge or errors in writing, merely a request to back up the information with credible sources. :}

Bzuk 22:01 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the lecture. You're mistaken. Please add completed citations if you like, it would be very helpful. Gwen Gale 22:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Bzuk. The citation marker is not an indication of disagreement - it simply notes an unsupported statement. They encourage people who visit the page to contribute citations. This is especially important for a bio page where allegation such as 'heavy drinking', etc. are made - see WP:BLP. I think they should go back in. Ronnotel 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First Pan Am Clipper

In the references I have checked, the first Pan Am Clipper (Sikorsky S40 American Clipper) flew in October 1931 not March 1935 with Charles Lindbergh aboard, and no mention of Fred Noonan. Anyone shed light on this discrepency? Is it just a date mixup or have I missed Noonan on an earlier flight? The article states that he flew in San Francisco in 1935 which would make this a Sikorsky S42 (NC-824M) that was often grouped with the other "Clipper" fleet but was actually unnamed. Bzuk 1:01 5 February 2007 (UTC).

No, it's not a discrepency. The Lindbergh flight was almost entirely overland (via Alaska) for survey purposes and because of diplomatic troubles Tripp was unable to pursue far eastern routes for another 3 years or so and by then they were preparing for flights across the Pacific. Noonan was on the first Pan Am flight from San Francisco Bay to Honolulu. Gwen Gale 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Some questions

1. Is the licensed sea captain known for carrying a ship's sextant on flights, Noonan? 2. Why did he resign from Pan Am? I cannot find a reference for a date of leaving or any indication of why he left Pan Am. Could he have left specifically to join the Earhart World Flight? 3. Was he really a drinker? Only Goerner mentions this and only in the context of an automobile accident report where it is noted that one of the occupants of Noonan's car was drinking. Some of the film features about Earhart notably the Diane Keaton vehicle play up Noonan's drinking problem. Bzuk 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fred Noonan, sea captain, was known (among his colleagues) for carrying a maritime sextant on his flights.

Remark : In an article , July 2008, European Journal of Navigatiion, p.25 it is shown how Noonan made use of the air [bubble] sextant for establishing his positiion near Nukumanu Island by a sight on the setting sun. For a sight on the rising sun the morning after he could not use the air sextant and he had to use the marine sextant [Pioneer made] since a sight on the ascending sun is necessarily on the upper limb [due refraction]. For such event, e.g. the 1928 edition of Navigation and Nautical Astronomy [Dutton, art.311, p.348] prescribes : "Because of the errors of the bubble sextant , the best results are obtained by flying very low and using the ordinary [= marine] sextant on the horizon". The article also explains [numerically, p.28] how Noonan used the marine sextant to establish a last position fix [ 178-47' W.Long. / 00-09' N.Lat.] before heading for the over Howland advanced sun line when flying at 1,000 ft altitude [no.12 Earhart to Itasca radio message].It is therefore most probable that Noonan carried his marine sextant whereas he actually made us of it. Desertfax (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)desertfax

• In 1937 he divorced his wife, left Pan Am, remarried and expressed a desire to form a navigating school. There is no evidence he left Pan Am specifically to participate in the world flight. Whilst there are no known surviving employment records from Pan Am relating to Fred, I believe there are some letters.
• There is no evidence Fred had any drinking problem which interferred with his work as a navigator. He did drink though, which was common back then. Goerner heard a rumour and repeated it as fact, which filtered into popular culture. The Keaton film has lots of inaccuracies and myths, that's one of them. It's like the reversed public perception Earhart didn't smoke... she did, like lots of Americans born around the turn of the century. Gwen Gale 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Aerial navigators carried maritime sextants as a rule because given the right conditions they were more accurate than an octant which was difficult to use and subject to accelerations in the plane.

• There is a record in the PAA archives relating to Fred's employment with NYRBA an airline which was taken over by PAA in 1930. Fred is on the employment roll as a Regional Clerk earning $1500.However we know from the 1930 census that he was an aviator then so he must have been assigned to fly following the granting of his licence. Jackie Ferrari (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"It's like the reversed public perception Earhart didn't smoke... she did, like lots of Americans born around the turn of the century." -- Oh, did she, now? According to the biographical sources that I've seen, she didn't smoke at all, but only signed that Lucky Strike endorsement because the other two pilots on the 1928 transatlantic flight did smoke, and she felt that it wouldn't be fair to them if she turned it down. Not that it really matters, but I want to keep the record straight as far as AE is concerned. 76.21.37.87 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The ´drinking´ of Noonan has undeservedly been used to exort failures by which the 1937 crew did not find Howland Island. Even a "sextant box" ("found" at the roots of every palm tree around the Pacific) "contained" an "empty bottle" , naturally : Johnny Walker. It is btw even possible (viz. EJN , above) that Noonan´s very precise astro navigation plaid tricks on him when the aircraft ended up on a false position line , 10 st.mls only westwards of the precomputed specimen.80.56.50.56 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumed dead

It seems like it is standard biographical terminology to indicate whether someone who has been missing is presumed dead or not. Is this controversial? If so, why? Ronnotel 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Any legal declaration as to his fate happened long after 2 July 1937 (I've forgotten when he was declared dead but it was a few years later). Putting "presumed dead" with that date would be misleading, first because that may not have been the language used, second because a reader could misinterpret the meaning of the phrase mixed with the date. He went missing 2 7 1937, that's clear and fully supported. Finally, "presumed" could allow some readers to infer a doubt. Let there be none, Fred's dead. Cite the death certificate if you like though, that's ok with me. Gwen Gale 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Fred is dead, but listing his status as 'missing' is clearly inappropriate. According to reports in the local papers (SF Chron, Oakland Tribune), Mary Bea had Fred declared dead by the Oakland Superior Court on 20 June 1938 so she could get remarried. I'll include that date to make it clear. Ronnotel 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's cool... missing 2 July 1937, declared dead 20 June 1938 ... all supported (the 1938 date sounds familiar). Gwen Gale 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I revised the birth/death dates in line with WP:Date Ronnotel 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Date doesn't support the omission of documented information. I've put both dates in the header. Gwen Gale 23:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to include date of last sighting in the birth/death part. It's included in later text. Ronnotel 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to remove supported information from the header of this article? Do you dispute that Noonan went missing on 2 July 1937? Gwen Gale 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm just following the format specified in WP:Date section 1.9. The date he went missing is still included in the lead, where it belongs. Ronnotel 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - you've added a factual dispute, I don't think any facts are in dispute, are they? Ronnotel 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be disputing the missing date of 2 July 1937. Do you dispute it or not? Gwen Gale 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, for the third time, I do not dispute it (although to be fair there doesn't seem to be any documentation for it). I simply dispute whether we should violate clearly articulated WP policy as to where the information should go. It belongs in the lead paragraph - but not as part of the birth/death dates. Can you please acknowledge that we should follow WP:Date for this information? Ronnotel 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Date says nothing about "missing" dates. Fred Noonan's disappearance on 2 July 1937 is widely documented. The date of his death is unknown. Although he likely died in 1937, likely sometime in July, we do not know when he died. He was declared dead in June 1938. There is no lack of precision or clarity in listing both dates in his b-d bracket. There is no need to provide readers with an ambiguous "circa" date when the available documentation supports only the date he went missing and the date he was declared dead. Gwen Gale 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Policies exist for a reason. The reason missing is not included at WP:Date is because it's use is unencyclopedic when citing the birth and death dates in a biography. It is a fact that we don't know with certainty when Fred died, hence, circa is entirely appropriate. To be honest, I think you're being somewhat insensitive about this. Ronnotel 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of trying to psychoanalyze me, which is a violation of WP policy and OT, please provide a citation from WP or anywhere else to support your assertion that "missing... is unencyclopedic when citing the birth and death dates in a biography." Thank you. Gwen Gale 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Assertion retracted. Apology offered. Mea culpas all around. But it's not my job to explain WP:Date - it's your job to explain the compelling reason to violate it. I'm all ears. Ronnotel 00:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please please provide a specific citation, which is to say a string of text, from WP:Date or any other WP policy page to support your assertion that I have violated WP:Date.

• Please be aware that this article has listed the missing date in the b-d bracket for a very long time with no dispute from any editor. This is strong evidence that it's not controversial, misleading, confusing, unhelpful, or ambiguous. Gwen Gale 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Date shows the acceptable forms for b/d listing. If this article were to be submitted for consideration for WP:Good, it would certainly be required that b/d be listed in the correct format to pass. There are a lot of things in a lot of WP articles that have been incorrect for a long time. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be fixed. Ronnotel 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And btw, do we really need a fact dispute tag? I think we simply discussing where information should go, not what the information is. Ronnotel 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need a fact dispute tag. You have removed his missing date from the article and inserted an ambiguous death date when no date of actual death is available in the documented record.

All you have provided are assertions. You have not provided the support I requested.

• You have not provided a specific citation, which is to say a string of text, from WP:Date or any other WP policy page to support your assertion that I have violated WP:Date.

• You have not provided a citation from WP or anywhere else to support your assertion that "missing... is unencyclopedic when citing the birth and death dates in a biography."

Please provide these requested citations to support your assertions, thanks. Gwen Gale 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is absurd. By your logic, why stop at missing, let's include his wedding dates, prom nights and first communion as well in the b/d section. The policy is clear. If you disagree with WP:Date, I suggest you change it there first. Ronnotel 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You assert you're supported by WP policy, but you have not responded to my request for specific citations from it, including WP:Date.

Instead, you have responded with distracting and disruptive non-sequiter ridicule and sarcasm. However, on the assumption of good faith, if I'm mistaken and what I've taken as ridicule and sarcasm are truly your sincere assertions,

• Please provide a diff showing where I made any statement asserting anything other than the inclusion of FN's missing and declared death dates into Noonan's b-d bracket.

• Please provide a diff showing where I have made a request to include wedding, prom night or first communion dates into Noonan's b-d bracket.

Then,

• Please provide a specific citation, which is to say a string of text, from WP:Date or any other WP policy page to support your assertion that I have violated WP:Date.

• Please provide a specific citation from WP or anywhere else to support your assertion that "missing... is unencyclopedic when citing the birth and death dates in a biography."

Thanks. Gwen Gale 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, we seem to be stuck in a rut. The policy is clear, it's not for me to explain it. All bio pages I can find ranked WP:Good or WP:FA use the format laid out there. If you dispute the policy, please change it there. Otherwise, let please follow it. Ronnotel 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And no, for the fifth time, I have not removed 2 July 1937. It's included in the lead paragraph. There is no factual dispute. Ronnotel 03:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please support your previous assertions and provide the four citations I've requested above. Thanks again. Gwen Gale 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy is clear and needs no further explanation. Ronnotel 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't cited any policy at all. None. Please supply the four citations I've requested above. Gwen Gale 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Date section 1.9 shows the allowed formats for b/d dates. Ronnotel 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Section 1.9 says nothing about how to deal with missing persons (who went missing on widely documented, specific dates) who were later declared dead on a specific date. Moreover, the introduction says, "The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules;"

It doesn't support your assertion that I have violated WP:Date. It doesn't support your assertion that "missing... is unencyclopedic when citing the birth and death dates in a biography."

Moreover, you still haven't provided the 2 following diffs/cites:

• A diff showing where I made any statement asserting anything other than the inclusion of FN's missing and declared death dates into Noonan's b-d bracket.

• A diff showing where I have made a request to include wedding, prom night or first communion dates into Noonan's b-d bracket.

I'd like to resolve these points before we move on to your subsequent assertions about the contents of other WP articles. Thanks, as ever. Gwen Gale 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel WP:Date is incorrect, let's please change it there first. Otherwise, I suggest we follow it. Ronnotel 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Date offers nothing to follow but first, I'd like to clear up the remarks you made about my edits being a violation of WP:Date, that my edits were "unencyclopedic," that I thought one could/should include Fred's prom date or whatever in his b-d bracket and so on. You made these assertions, please support them or take them back. Then I'd like to talk about your subsequent assertions. Steadfast thanks, Gwen Gale 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Date is clear. If you believe it should be changed to accomodate Fred and Amelia's situation, by all means go ahead. I never accused you wanting to include Fred's wedding date, etc. That was hyperbole meant to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. You are apparently asking me to cite some statement in WP:Date explicitly denying the inclusion of the word missing. However, because of the vast number of possible items that could be included in a birth/death section, it is impractical to enumerate such a list of negative examples. Rather, the policy must be read as a list of positive examples. I.e. it shows what is allowed, rather than attempting to list what is not allowed. By unencyclopedic, I mean that since WP policies are used to determine what is encyclopedic, that which does not conform to these policies is, by definition, unencyclopedic. For instance, note that is specifically recommends against include the place of birth or death and instead, moving that to the text. Ronnotel 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In contrast, you have repeatedly accused me of wanting to remove the date he went missing. Will you please either support or retract that statement? Ronnotel 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, I have posted a question at WP:Date (Talk) requesting clarification of your point regarding Fred and Amelia's situation. Please review to make sure I have presented the issue fairly. Ronnotel 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You continue making assertions (along with rather serious accusations about my behaviour as an editor) without supporting them through citations or diffs. Accordingly, I respectfully decline your invitation to engage in a dispute. Gwen Gale 12:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there still a factual dispute? If so, let's please resolve it so we can remove the tag. To the best of my ability, I believe that your concern is that I have removed documented information, see [1] [2] [3]. However, the lead paragraph includes the text "Last seen on 2 July 1937,. . ." I contend that no documented information was removed, that it is still prominently displayed, and that there is no basis for a factual dispute tag. Do you agree? Ronnotel 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The information now in the b-d bracket is unsupported by the available documentation. Gwen Gale 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly surprising given that his death was never documented. Ronnotel 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Like your many assertions. Gwen Gale 15:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no factual dispute. It is inappropriate to leave the dispute tag in place. Ronnotel 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the tag is mistaken and unsupported. Gwen Gale 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that c.1937 is unsupported. I suppose it's in the realm of possibility, however unlikely, that he really was taken prisoner and held by the Japanese, etc. Heck, for all we know maybe he even ended up in the Delta quadrant. WP:Date suggests an alternate use of "date of death unknown". Would that be acceptable? Ronnotel 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is zero evidence FN was "kidnapped" by the Japanese. Please stop misrepresenting my edits, thanks.

(" ... -missing 2 July 1937") would be acceptable since it is wholly supported by the documented record and WP:Date doesn't currently cover how to handle this, never mind unambiguously. Gwen Gale 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing is inappropriate because it leaves open the possibility that he is alive. It is unencyclopedic and insensitive to family members seeking closure. Ronnotel 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation that Noonan could possibly be construed to be alive is mistaken and unsupported.

• Please provide a citation supporting your assertion that using the term "missing" in a b-d bracket is unencyclopedic.

• Please provide a citation supporting your assertion that providing "closure" to family members is a function of Wikipedia, or that providing "closure" to family members is encyclopedic. Gwen Gale 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have it backwards. WP:Date clearly shows the acceptable formats. You're the one who needs to cite an example supporting the usage you propose. Ronnotel 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not supported your many assertions with citations, despite my repeated requests that you do so. Meanwhile I don't have it backwards: You're making the assertions here, please support them. Gwen Gale 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My only assertion is that we follow WP:Date. Ronnotel 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You've made many other assertions aside from that. Please support them as I've requested. Moreover, WP:Date does not support your use of the b-d bracket, nor does it support your removal of documented information from the article. Please restore the deleted information, thank you. Gwen Gale 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one proposing a usage that is not described by WP:Date hence the burden to support this usage is on you. The information you claim I have removed from the article has simply been moved to its logical place - still prominently displayed. I can see we are unlikely to resolve this between us. I cannot accept the term 'missing' for reasons I have explained. You seem unwilling, so far, to accept anything else. I'm sure we're both busy people - is there some way we can cut this short? I'm all ears. Ronnotel 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Date doesn't describe how to deal with this. You can start by either supporting your many assertions, or retracting them. Gwen Gale 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get beyond accusations. Would you be willing to seek input from others to help us resolve this? Ronnotel 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything. I'm asking for citations. For example, you asserted that your use of the b-d bracket would provide "closure" to Noonan family members. I asked you for a citation supporting the notion that the function of Wikipedia includes providing "closure" to family members of subjects of its biographical articles, or that doing so would be encyclopedic. You have not provided a citation, as requested. There are many other examples. You have, however, responded to my repeated requests for citations with what you have described as "hyperbole." If you think input from others about your behaviour would be helpful, I don't mind but all I need are the requested citations. Gwen Gale 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So we're agreed that seeking input from a third party might be helpful? If so, I propose that we open a case at the mediation cabal, which is the most informal venue. Please feel free to start a case, or, if you prefer, I will do so. Ronnotel 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the citations I've requested. If you want to edit stuff on WP project pages instead, no input from me is needed. Gwen Gale 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going to request that the basis for the dispute tag be reviewed by another party. Ronnotel 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. All I want are citations supporting your many assertions. Gwen Gale 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All I want is the dispute tag removed. Ronnotel 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

btw, here is the case Ronnotel 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. If all you want is the dispute tag removed, I'll restore the header, which many editors have agreed upon and remove the dispute tag. Gwen Gale 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to intentionally misinterpret my words. As I said, I cannot accept 'missing' for stated reasons. Let's please wait for results of mediation rather than get into edit warring. Ronnotel 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't intentionally misinterpret your words. After giving you several days to support your assertions and receiving no citations in response, I edited accordingly when you at last said all you wanted was the removal of the dispute tag. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. What do you want? Gwen Gale 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't responsed to your requests for citations because they are spurious. It is not my place to explain WP:Date. The policy is clear. If you disagree, you are welcome to have it changed. Ronnotel 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Asserting that your version of the b-d bracket would give the Noonan family "closure" isn't spurious? If my requests for citations seem spurious to you, it is because the assertions I'm asking you to support may be spurious. Gwen Gale 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one proposing to use a format not allowed by WP:Date. You are the one who needs to provide support, not me. And, btw, are you aware that you appear to be mocking my concern for a deceased relative? Ronnotel 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're mistaken. WP:Date doesn't specify how to deal with this and in no way prohibits the b-d bracket which has previously been accepted by many editors. Please stop misrepresenting the contents of WP:Date.

• Please provide a diff where I have mocked you or anyone else.

• If you are a relative of Fred Noonan, please be aware that kin of someone who is the topic of a biographical article on Wikipedia carry no more weight here than any other editor. Edits must still be supported by a citation from a reliable secondary source and be within WP policy. Gwen Gale 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken about WP:Date. You are using a format that is not described, hence you are responsible to explain why that format is necessary and providing citations to other uses.

I'm not claiming any extra weight due to my family connection to FN. However, you made light of my concern about the description of FN's demise - calling it 'spurious'. I can assure you it is anything but. Ronnotel 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not make light of anything. You said my requests for citations were spurious (you were the first to use that word). I replied by saying perhaps that was because your assertions were spurious. Meanwhile, you've made it clear your interest in FN is not encyclopedic, so for me, this discussion is settled. Gwen Gale 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You said "Asserting that your version of the b-d bracket would give the Noonan family 'closure' isn't spurious?". Yes, by any reasonable interpretation, that is making light of my legitimate concern that FN's demise be described accurately. Now you seem to be suggesting that because of my family ties, somehow my edits are WP:PoV? Nice, very classy. And, btw, it's hard to believe that you didn't already know of my connection, given that I told you about it here. Ronnotel 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot it was you, but it wouldn't have changed much. I respect your personal opinions and feelings, but they aren't acceptable support for article content. As I said, since by your own account, your interest in this topic isn't encyclopedic, I consider this discussion closed. Meanwhile, please know I hold Fred in high regard and believe he made important early contributions to civil aviation. Happily, I can support my opinion with citations from reliable secondary sources. Gwen Gale 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Article content and WP:PoV are not the issues. Formatting and compliance with WP policy is the issue. Please provide evidence to support the b/d format you have used. Ronnotel 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are unsupported. If you have further questions about Wikipedia policy and how it relates to this article's content, please take time to re-read our above discussion. If you have questions of a more general nature, please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Gwen Gale 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support the b/d format you have used. Ronnotel 20:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's over. Gwen Gale 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support the b/d format you have used. Ronnotel 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Info box

Added an info box as per bio template. Also, I changed the picture for the following reasons:

1. existing picture was poorly exposed.
2. he was partially obstructed by A. Earhart
3. Noonan's face was in shadow and difficult to discern
4. another picture of Fred and Amelia is already included lower in the article.
5. new picture is of much better quality and doesn't detract from article as the existing picture does.

I have provided fair use citation for this picture. Ronnotel 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused why in the Early life section it says Fred is married to Josephine Sullivan, but in the Info Box it has listed Mary Bea Noonan. Just today, I emailed a woman who confirmed that her mother's sister, Mary Bea, was married to Fred Noonan. This leads me to believe that any connections with a Josephine Sullivan is from another Fred Noonan. Tostie14 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As the article says, Fred and Josephine were divorced and he married Mary. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As a clarification, both spouses could be listed in the infobox. Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Compromise

Thanks. That's fine.

On a minor note, WP:Date includes the text "Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article." I don't care much one way or the other, but I think it reads more cleanly with it in the paragraph rather than b/d. Up to you. Ronnotel 21:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told I was thinking the same thing, I'm gonna fix it now. Gwen Gale 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Organization of topics

Following the standard sub-headings established in the accompanying Amelia Earhart article, these sub-headings are recommended for this article and also follow the standard or conventional style for a biographical article. IMHO Bzuk 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

If you mean the article is too short, it is actually 76 kb which is the equivalent of a standard biographical article: e.g. Woodrow Wilson: 73 kb. Look at the headings and sub-heading for this article: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzuk (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article length makes them inappropriate. Cheers. Gwen Gale 02:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1 Early life, 2 Law practice, 3 Political writings and academic career, 3.1 Political writings, 3.2 Academic career, 4 Governor of New Jersey, 5 Campaign for Presidency in 1912, 6 Presidency 1913-1921, 6.1 Federal Reserve 1913, 6.1.1 Wilsonian economic views, 6.1.2 Other economic policies, 6.1.3 Antitrust, 6.1.4 War policy—World War I, 6.2 Election of 1916, 6.3 Second term, 6.3.1 Decision for War, 1917, 6.3.2 The Fourteen Points, 6.3.3 Other foreign affairs, 6.3.4 Versailles 1919, 6.3.5 Post war: 1919-20, 6.3.6 Support of Zionism, 6.3.7 Women's suffrage, 6.3.8 Incapacity, 6.4 Significant presidential acts, 6.5 Administration and Cabinet, 6.6 Supreme Court appointments, 7 Wilsonian Idealism, 8 Wilson and race, 8.1 White ethnics, 9 Later life, 10 Death, 11 Death of other wife, 12 Trivia, 12.1 Personal facts, 13 Media, 14 See also, 15 References, 15.1 Bibliography, 15.2 Primary sources, 16 External links

The Fred Noonan article's sub-headings pale in comparison: 1 Early life and maritime career, 2 Navigator for Pan Am, 3 Earhart world flight, 4 Disappearance theories, 5 Popular Culture, 6 References, 7 External links. FWIW Bzuk 03:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

No need for a disappearance theories section, which is also a misnomer. Gwen Gale 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not, it's taken from the Earhart article. See Amelia Earhart headings: 4 Disappearance theories. She disappeared, he didn't? [:¬∆ Bzuk 03:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

WP:FORK and length. Also I think the section heading should be renamed in Earhart to Disappearance. Gwen Gale 03:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know but that was the compromise that was agreed to and suggested by an admin since the topic was about the theories. FWIW Bzuk 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

The section has one mis-named theory and a hypothesis. Gwen Gale 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, titles that were agreed to were used. FWIW Bzuk 03:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

Those should likely be reconsidered. Meanwhile WP:FORK and the article length still lead me to support keeping all aspects of the World Flight in one section for this article. Gwen Gale 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And with a consensus, that can be revisited... FWIW Bzuk 04:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

You're referring to renaming. I'm talking about needless sectioning. Gwen Gale 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the latest iliteration, although there isn't much sectioning involved in the article, IMHO Bzuk 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

Conspiracy Theory again

I just finished reading the book Amelia Earhart Lives by Joe Klaas. In it Major Joe Gervais claims that he did meet Fred Noonan years after the plane went down and that he went by the name of William Van Dusen. According to Gervais, Van Dusen offered him a cigarette from a case which he claims he saw written on the inside: "A Salute, to the man who showed us the way across the Pacific, Frederick J. Noonan." Interesting book to read and also furthers the theory that Amelia Earhart was Irene Craigmile Bolam. Koolbluecat 06:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The theory of an alternate identity for Amelia Earhart now has been considered very discredited as the following note from Earhart researcher, Dr. Alex Mandel indicates: "Particularly, recently Mr. Tod Swindell, an enthusiastic supporter of this theory, prepared a set of photographic overlays that he consider as proof that Amelia Earhart (AE) survived as Irene Bolam (IB).

However it is worth considering that Mr. Swindell is not a professional in forensic research, and any supportive official verdict of the forensic research professionals never followed. Moreover, at close examination of the photos it is obvious for any non-biased view that in reality Amelia Earhart and Irene Bolam had many differences, both in body and facial characteristics.

It is also worth noting that Major Joe Gervais - the father of this theory - never meet Earhart in person before 1965 (when he saw Irene Bolam and "decided" that she must be Earhart). So the value of his "recognition" of Earhart in Irene Bolam has at least, a highly doubtful level of credibility.

Actually, the fact is that there were many people who knew BOTH women personally, and they all were firmly convinced that Earhart and Bolam were different persons.

There are many obvious stretches in this theory, and the questions without a proper and reasonable answers. First of all: WHY at all would Earhart abandon her identity to become a New Jersey housewife? No fact or even believable theoretical reasons for this idea have ever been presented, only speculative guesses in contradiction with many credible historical sources about Earhart's personality have been offered.

How it was possible for Earhart to abandon her family, especially her mother and sister, to whom she was extremely close? Also, how it was possible for her to abandon and never contact her husband George Putnam, as well as her numerous friends? Earhart's dedication and loyalty to family and friends was really legendary.

Where was Earhart between 1937 and 1945? In contrary to the concept of Irene Bolam theory, no evidence has ever been found in Japan to indicate AE's presence there that appears minimally credible in any way. Some statements of the theory, like about Earhart's secret life in Japanese Imperial palace with Emperor Hirohito, are obviously beyond a reasonable belief for any historically aware person.

What happened to the real, original Irene Bolam? As it was found by historical researchers, she certainly existed between 1934 and 1945, and was working in the banking business in New York City. Why would the government use the name and identity of a real person, known by many people and living an active, normal life, in a plot to transform this individual into another, discrete individual (Earhart) without these people becoming aware of it?

How and why could such an immense and long-lived conspiracy, with hundreds or even thousands of people necessarily involved, be organized and kept secret for decades? It has been proposed that AE's family and friends were aware of the conspiracy, but were all somehow persuaded to remain silent about it.

But nothing of substance has ever been offered to support this idea, and it's virtually impossible to assume that so many people, by some "secret agreement," successfully concealed this plot from entire world for many decades. It is extremely hard to keep such a stuff in secrecy - for both 'technical' and emotional reasons.

If even to guess that the "price of secrecy" that AE was compelled to pay included abandoning her family and friends, why then would AE, as IB, go on to live such a documented, semi-public lifestyle, attending aviation-related public events, joining organizations like Zontas and 99s (where AE was a former member) and meeting numerous people who personally knew AE?

Finally - if it was a "great conspiracy" with a governmental interests involved - why would the U.S.Government allow the personal meeting of IB and Mr. Joe Gervais, who was already well known as a persistent AE researcher? Considering all he above, it seems very difficult to accept seriously the concept of Amelia Earhart's secret repatriation as Irene Bolam. It looks like just a theory, and enough far-fetched, bizarre and radical one, at that. There is no any serious reason to consider it as real solution of AE disappearance mystery.

Respectfully submitted - Alex V. Mandel, Ph.D. Naval and aviation historian, author; member of US Naval institute and Association of Naval Aviation.Bzuk 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

There is a difference between celebrity codswallop made up and mass marketed in the hope of making a profit from the gullible and scholarship, which tends to lean on verifiable sources. The Irene Bolam thing has been thoroughly debunked and the publisher settled with her out of court for a substantial sum. Gwen Gale 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance edits

Recently, an edit was made that introduced the following statement: "Today, the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan remains a mystery. No wreckage of Earhart's aircraft, or the bodies of her and Fred Noonan have ever been found."

Rather than getting into an edit war over it, I would suggest the following revision: "Today, the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan remains a mystery. No wreckage of Earhart's aircraft, or the bodies of her and Fred Noonan have ever been found although one theory postulates that having run out of fuel, Earhart ditched the Electra in the ocean where she perished with her navigator. Another hypothesis based on a range of documented, archaeological and anecdotal evidence asserts that Earhart and Noonan may have found Gardner, which at the time was uninhabited, landed the Electra on a flat reef near the wreck of a large freighter and sent sporadic radio messages from there. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

I've taken out (or I should say, left out) the boldest speculation which, although published, indeed cited and carried in the article without dispute for the past three years, is so extrapolated as to be of questionable worth to some readers. However, I think it would be more helpful to allow Noonan's biographical article to expand on this somewhat further, given the navigational aspects of the hypothesis that Noonan, a pioneering aviation navigator, found Gardner after they missed Howland, along with further published details about the evidence which has been found in archives and on Nikumaroro. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

However the note on the skeletal remains that are reinserted refer to Earhart and were not conclusively tied to anyone in the end. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Earhart and Noonan disappeared together. A later, blind anthropological/forensic study of measurements taken of the remains by a British colonial doctor at the time concluded the bones were the remains of a European female of Nordic descent (which describes Earhart) and there are a number of published and verifiable sources (including those used as citations in the article) which conclude the bones were likely hers. However, please do add any published disagreement or criticism, which, truth be told, would only stabilize the article content even further. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ric Gillespie discounts the Gallagher find (Gillespie 2006, p. 241); Gallagher's own record indicates that the bones were likely "more than four years old... there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt (sic)." FWiW, no contemporary research attributes the Gallagher find to Earhart. Bzuk (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Both Amelia Earhart's Shoes[4] and Finding Amelia[5] discuss the skeleton and the possibility that it belonged to Earhart. Moreover, the scholarly paper cited in the article does likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a direct, cited quote from the scholarly paper to the section. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly conclusive to have only TIGHAR materials and sources since they are mainly repetitive. Strippel whose work has touched on all the disappearance theories has disagreed with almost all of the TIGHAR findings which remain, as you have noted, highly speculative. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Please add some other, dissenting sources. I want you to. Meanwhile I didn't say the Tighar research was speculative at all, I was only talking about some cited musings as to whether Noonan might have died more or less straight off, whilst Earhart may have survived for many months (musings which were in the article for three years until today). Although plausible, these extrapoloations alone are highly speculative and could greatly mislead readers in such a short article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I probably missed the story where Earhart's bones were found since the discoverer himself in 1940 didn't think the skeletal remains were conclusive. Thomas King, the archaeologist of the TIGHAR team also did not have the bones to examine since they are nowhere to be found, reputedly lost in Fiji. I have read all the TIGHAR books and publications on the subject and had been a member of the organization myself, joining when the organization was searching for l'Oiseau Blanc, the missing transatlantic aircraft. The Earhart project on Nikumaroro came afterwards and while the TIGHAR efforts are interesting, 16 years worth of expeditions to the South Pacific have been unsuccessful in recovering evidence that resolves the mystery of Earhart's disappearance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

As cited in both this article and at Amelia Earhart, there is much meaningful evidence to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Again, please feel free to add citations from reliable, independent sources which are in disagreement with the Nikumaroro hypothesis: As you know, any unsourced commentary about this (in agreement or not in agreement, from me, you or any other editor) is original research and doesn't have any sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Strippel 1995, p. 60 is devoted to the well-meaning efforts of the TIGHAR projects, under the banner heading of "Go Get 'Em TIGHAR!" and generally relegates the evidence found as unreliable and the product of "Earhart trekkies." Not a very charitable analysis while Dr. Tom Crouch, the curator at the Smithsonian whose research embodies the Early and Golden Age eras, has written that TIGHAR has based all of its initial hypothesis on the supposed "distress calls" received after July 2 and has concluded that the calls were correctly identified as hoaxes at the time (Crouch 2007, pp. 20–21). Equally emphatic in that TIGHAR is "on the wrong track" is the team of Elgen (deceased) and Marie Long, Captain Laurance F. Safford, as well as a host of other researchers. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

As I said before, please do cite any sources from reliable, independent publishers which either directly disagree with the Nikumaroro hypothesis or offer evidence for other outcomes. It will only stabilize the article and be helpful to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted your statement Ms Gale to many members of the research community who entirley disagree with your Gardner Theory. Are you a communist? Because, by not allowing other theories, you must be. Who are you to promote the TIGHAR theory? The TIGHAR hypothesis is a theory. It has un-supporting evidence. They have not found anything which could be found on any deserted island.However, you choose to envoke your powers as "Editor" to make sure nothing but the Gardner theory fits into the disappearance.Southerndata (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, Southerndata, but you're wrong to accuse Gwen Gale of being a communist and not allowing other theories besides the Gardner Island theory; last time I checked this article, both the crash-and-sink theory and the Gardner theory were clearly mentioned in the article, so your accusations that only the Gardner theory is mentioned are groundless. Now I must acknowledge that there's a little bit of bias in favor of the Gardner theory (it's described as having a broad range of documented historical and anecdotal evidence supporting it, which is not yet confirmed), but the crash-and-sink theory is also discussed and given its fair place in the article. Really, I think you should read the article more carefully before making such serious accusations. 76.21.37.87 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check the date of the last edit previous to the above comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

I've just checked not only the date of the edit, but also the edit history of the article around that date. Looks like there was quite a nasty edit war between Gwen Gale and Southerndata about the disappearence theories around that time. Well anyway, in all of Gwen Gale's edits, although she seems to give undue weight to the Gardner theory, she also clearly mentions that "It is possible, even likely, that Earhart ditched the Electra in the ocean where she perished with her navigator", so Southerndata was really out of bounds with his/her "communist" remarks (and was also wrong to delete supported info from the article). Now I know this was almost a year ago, but it really hurts me to see a researcher/editor being accused of being a "communist" and acting in bad faith when the only thing she was guilty of was a bit of one-sidedness in her evidence and bias in her conclusions. I mean, it wasn't like she was stopping someone from putting in evidence about the crash-and-sink theory -- it was actually Southerndata who was acting like a communist by trying to remove stuff about the Gardner theory. Just trying to keep the record straight. (BTW, why not add some quotes from sources that are in favor of the crash-and-sink theory? I would love to see both views represented in this article, but I don't have the necessary sources with me.) FWiW

76.21.37.87 (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A set of 2 quantitative publications in EJN (European Journal of Navigation), July 2008 and April 2011 shows , besides that the aircraft was not flown over the Lae-Howland great circle , that probably by using two sextants (bubble versus marine) on one same trip , a local hour angle error at sunrise in the roads of Howland introduced a time error which did not show up on the on board watches. As a result a too westerly line of position was flown along , with the island 16 miles on the port beam at the estimated time of landfall. This distance from 1,000 ft altitude , apart from other unfavorable circumstances , was for the island below the 1 arcmin resolution of the human eye , and the target was subsequently missed. Probably the aircraft alighted on the high seas some 85 st.miles northwest of Howland and came to rest on the slopes of two below surface hills visible by Google Earth in "ocean" configuration. 80.56.50.56 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)80.56.50.56 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on the US Coast Guard transmissions, the consensus on the USCG Itasca was that Earhart had overshot Howland and directed their search to the N within an approximate 100 mile radius. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

For overshoot (flying too far eastwards) the search should be directed to the NE , not the NW. 80.56.50.56 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Right you are, I'll have to check sources rather than the memory bank... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse Bzu , it was not at all my intention to offend you.80.56.50.56 (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken, just was pretty sure that the first search was to the N but not exactly sure, unless I check some of the references, as to the exact quadrant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, M. 80...; I have a message for you at User talk:80.56.50.56. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC).

80.56 has read it , many thanks I will prepare for the concerning item . 80.56.50.56 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone knowing what he or she is talking about , would of the Nikumaroro " hypothesis" say (with Newton): non fingo hypothesis.80.56.50.56 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The article contains a sentence supposing that crossing the international date line would possibly have induced entanglement to the navigator. Remark : contrary to crossing the equator ("never let your [pre-] computations cross the equator" , sailor´s slogan , especially for great circle tracking), passing over the date line is a no risk occurrence if the day of departure , as expressed in GMT , has not ended. For any to Howland last flight leg (great circle or , alternatively , loxo from Nikunau or Tabiteuea)the date line was crossed at or before 1724 GMT which is 6h36m before the subsolar point of July 2 was on the Greenwich anti meridian to start July 3 in apparent time.80.56.50.56 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In the "See also" paragraph of the article a spello says "Earheart".80.56.50.56 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

An article in European Journal of Navigation (vol.6 no.2 , July 2008) explains ad fundum the 1745 - 1815 GMT discrepancy of aircraft´s speed which would have been 200 mph (1745 ´200 miles out´, 1815 ´100 miles out´ by radio). Aircraft´s speed was 150 mph as usual , the virtual flaw came from a navigation error (erroneous local hour angle) incurred when a sunrise fix was established to ascertain the position with regard to Howland´s assumed coordinates. From the same recomputations it is clear that the aircraft was truly in the immediate nearness (16 st.mls) of Howland with for 1/2 hr fuel (ex the special 100 oct gas , for an additional 1/2h05min) at 1912 GMT : reaching Gardner at a distance of 409 mls loxo would have asked a fuel capacity for 2h55m. Reasonably , Earhart and Noonan have never been on Gardner/Nikumaroro and the everlasting unverified "finds" , in the course of time several all-embracing kitchen units , deliver unconditional proof themselves.80.56.50.56 (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)80.56.50.56 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The in the article mentioned "Date Line Error Theory" is a nonsense theory , stating that for two instances Noonan had (and forgot) to change almanac pages (from July 2nd to July 1st and from July 2nd to July 3rd respectively): first when crossing "local midnight" and secondly when passing over the "Date Line". Both occurrences had zero influence on navigation since the entire flight (by plan & actually) deployed at July 2nd within 0000 & 2400 GMT , whereas the aircraft was flown on(GMT)Zulu , not local time schedule. Writer of theory (datelinetheory.com) has no insight in her subject.80.56.50.56 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC).80.56.50.56 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bzuk I have a remark abt the question you put a few days ago , I do however, not succeed contacting via the talk page finding no entry , plse message how or deliver URL.80.56.50.56 (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Radio transmissions

Recently added to the article: "Some researchers bring up an at takeoff broken (port) belly aerial wire , thereby reasoning the erratic radio voice communications . Radio transmission and reception were by one V-shaped aerial from a cabin mast to the rudder tips . Most probably the belly antenna was used by an RDF installation with a s.c. sense aerial against forwards-backwards bearing ambiguity . Loss of this belly aerial had no influence on the one channel radio communication with a send-receive relay operated by the microphone switch , by one single aerial . A close up picture of the "belly antennas" exists, but it is not completely reliable: part of the broken wire would have been "found back" on a Pacific island to support an "evasive action" by landing on the island after the destination was not found.80.56.50.56 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)"

Article in European Journal of Navigation , Dec 2011 , Vol. 9 no.3 contains that A/c´s maximum ferry range was within small margins 2,740 land miles from Lae . Other islands than Howland , or Baker , could not be reached . The conclusion also places the date @ which the crew members deceased was July 2 ,1937 , after A/c was alighted , in the most favorable event , @ sea in the Howland region . 77.250.101.214 (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest research brought to light that the aircraft was flown via Choiseul to Nukumanu , a 59 mls detour by which the average ferry speed increases to 141 mph . The maximum conditional ferry length extends to 2,852 st.miles from 2,740 as earlier accounted for . 86.85.177.234 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fred Noonan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828035025/http://www.dataquality.com/999bkrv1.htm to http://www.dataquality.com/999bkrv1.htm

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) 15:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Claim: "Earhart´s aircraft was not (contrary to current literature) flown over the great circle New Guinea-to-Howland"

This edit by an IP back in 2013 added the following claim:

Further recent research has indicated that on July 2, 1937, Earhart´s aircraft was not (contrary to current literature) flown over the great circle New Guinea-to-Howland.<ref>European Journal of Navigation, Vol. 9, no. 1, 2011.</ref>

Note that there's no hyperlink, and no reference to a specific paper in that journal.

That's a real journal, with a web site. So I went to the website and searched the archives of the European Journal of Navigation for "Earhart" and found no mention at all.

I suspect this edit was a prank, and the reference was a fake. I propose deleting the sentence. Does anyone object? NCdave (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me ...(take a look at the IP's edits around that time). Shearonink (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. NCdave (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)