Talk:Amelia Earhart/Archive 6

message: I have been thinking about the similarity between the NPOV stance of the Wikipedia, the alternative theories dispute, and the approach used in investigating airliner accidents.  An accident investigation starts with all of the interested parties collecting the 'facts' of the accident, aircraft, crew, weather, etc. Everything is suspect until eliminated. The inclusion of a broad spectrum of 'interested parties' such as the NTSB, aircraft manufacturer, Air Line Pilots Association, the airlines, FAA, engine and instrument manufacturers, etc., promotes an open and sometimes intense investigation. On a few occasions it is easy to eliminate possibilities and arrive easily at a "most probable cause." In a few cases it is very difficult to do so. Most airliner accidents, particularly ones involving pilot error or system failures have multiple contributing factors. This is where the 'interested parties' contribute strongly.
The major difference is that the Wikipedia strongly seeks a neutral point of view whereas the NTSB wants to identify causes, problems and fix them.
The events of 2 July 1937 near and at Howland Island, as well as the search afterwards left most participants firmly believing that the 'most probable cause" for the loss of the Electra and it's crew was that they missed Howland and took a swim. Subsequent inquiries showed that there were sever flaws in the planning and execution of the critical radio navigation phase of the flight.
Now we have another "mystery" to deal with. Well after WW II new and exciting theories were put forth concerning what transpired before, during and after AE's last flight.
Our 'mystery" is how do we tell the story of Amelia Earhart in accordance with the methods, purposes and goals of the Wikipedia?
More specifically what is the importance of the various "alternative" (NPOV compared to "conspiracy") theories to informing readers about Amelia Earhart?
Were we to present each of those theories in full, and then rebut them to maintain a NPOV, we would end up with an entirely different article than was needed.
Is it possible to limit the amount of memory allocated to each of those stories? Excuse me if I seem ignorant of the process and all, I am a nugget around here.Mark Lincoln 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral POV and Accident Reports

message: Why is there a link to Opa Locka Airport on the AE page? She flew out of the old Miami Municipal field which was south of Opa Locka and west of Masters Field. Miami Municipal was renamed Amelia Earhart Field after Miami switched airline operations to Eastern's 36 st Airport which is now MIA.
I don't know for certain when Amelia Earhart Field closed, apparently in the 1950s, but it was just abandoned runways and a few decaying hangers in the mid-1960s. I snuck onto it once and drove the old VW up and down the runways. It was fenced off, unlike Masters field which was wide open.
Masters Field was closed in the 1950s, though many buildings were still in use in the late 1960s, and most of it became Miami-Dade Jr. College North Campus in the 1960s. A small non-Navy hanger was on the SE corner of the campus until about 1969, it was reputed to have been the one she used and had been moved from AE Field. I have my doubts.
I would recommend that the Opa Locka link be replaced with this one, or a page for Miami Municipal http://www.airfields-freeman.com/FL/Airfields_FL_Miami_N.htm#miamimuniMark Lincoln 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Opa Locka? 

message: Text removed from the current article that is just a lengthy quote in support of a paragraph that was disputed is as follows (around page 268): 
:The reference from the 1997 Goldstein and Dillon biography cited is as follows:
:“Amy began to believe Amelia was being held in Japan when, ‘a few days after Amelia’s S.O.S,’ an unnamed friend listening to a shortwave broadcast from Tokyo claimed to have heard that ‘they were celebrating there with parades etc. because of Amelia’s recue or pickup by a Japanese fisherman.’ The individual must have heard something, as Amy wrote to Neta Southern, the former Neta Snook, who had taught Amelia to fly, ‘This young girl drove 27 miles at 11 o’clock at night and through a horrid part of Los Angeles to tell me.’ 
:“Of course, the Japanese would have been pleased and proud to have rescued Amelia. But parades? Possibly she heard a garbled account of Japan’s participation in the search or perhaps some ceremonies connected with the popular Star Festival, a happy occasion to be held on July 7. Patriotic fervor was running high in Japan, and July 8 would see the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, usually considered Asian portion of World War Two.
:“The next day Amy went to the Japanese Consulate, where she was received courteously. But when she returned two days later, the former consul had been replaced, and the new incumbent knew nothing about the matter. George came back the next day and telephoned the consulate. Getting no satisfaction over the phone, he ‘insisted on a personal interview and saw the consul but got nowhere and came home very angry and upset.’ “ Goldstein and Dillon, 1997
Matt605 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redacted Text 

message: An 8:1 majority would generally automatically form a consensus. However, voting isn't necessarily everything, so I will try to weigh up the consensus on the merits of the arguments used. Overall, the argument is whether Matt's revisions and additions are verifiable and whether his sources are appropriate (incidentally, whether the saipan theory is true or not is irrelevant; all that matters is if it can be sourced).
Reading up, it is my strong opinion that though Matt's revisions are 'verifiable' in that it is possible for them to be verified by independent sources, but they are not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense: they cannot be attributed to a reliable published source. It appears that this is the consensus amongst all of the editors apart from Matt.
As they currently are, the sources provided by Matt do not match WP:V or WP:CITE. They are not reliable or independent. That is not to say they will never be - the documentary mentioned above, if screened on say the BBC or a Sky channel, would perhaps constitute reliability or independence. A video on YouTube quite simply does not, and I see no other reliable sources mentioned above (and nor do any of the other editors). Therefore, the information cannot be included.
Although I am certain that Matt is acting in good faith, the continuation of the discussion when the consensus amongst the editors (based on the application of policy) is clearly against him is unnecessary disruption. Based on his current arguments, Matt's viewpoint will never be accepted by the others, and this is justifiable and reasonable.
I encourage Matt to find other, more reliable sources for his information, but until then he must stop prolonging the inevitable. Following the consensus above, I encourage the others to apply the revert and further develop the article from there.
I will not say that Matt's argument can never be included, in case better sources come to light, but at the moment it CANNOT. Continuing to argue, revert or edit war will result in him being blocked for more extended periods for disruption. ck lostsword•T•C 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwen, while the Gardner Island hypothesis is within the realm of the possible, i.e., if they took off with full fuel tanks they might with incredible luck have flown that far, there is NO credible evidence of them having done so. Every year or two TIGAR has their headline raising discovery only to have the evidence refuted upon investigation. There is exactly the same problem as Saipan. No airplane, no bodies, nothing. Gardner Island is at least possible, if highly unlikely. I would welcome any resolution of the 'mystery' though the only mystery is exactly where they went down.Mark Lincoln 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happily, there is no need to discuss our personal, meaningless opinions on what in truth happened. Instead, we have WP:V and WP:WEIGHT with which to include and balance verifiable secondary sources within the narrative. All the best. Gwen Gale 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, PS, I do so agree with you about the word "mystery" in this context. Gwen Gale 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mark, Gwen, I think the article does take a neutral position in stating that two disapearance theories/hypothesis predominate among Earhart scholars and researchers. There does not seem to be an overwhelming predeliction or emphasis to either of the two theories in the article as rewritten and all statements have a corresponding, corroborating reference citation. FWIW my 2¢ Bzuk 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly encourage Matt to continue to make constructive edits to the article and participate in discussions on this talk page; my advice was merely to leave the topic of Saipan until more evidence or better sources come to light. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal in the straw poll has not changed.  Akradeki has unanimous support from 8 Wikipedians to permanently block my ID and IP if I make any change to the article that does not meet with his liking.  I will never make another change to the article.  It was an abuse of process to block me while voting on the straw poll occured.  No reasonable person would respect that sort of trick, and I do not.  However, it is the article that ultimately suffers.  Matt605 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus