Talk:Howland Island

message: There seems to be some confusion in this article between "Howland Island" and "Howard Island".  In most cases, it appears to be just a typo.
However, I'm deleting the following link, because it seems to be referring to a totally different island (Howard Island, near Elcho Island, near Arnhem Land, in Australia).
*Description of a crash landing on Howard Island in 1943
Ray Spalding 06:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong island

message: While searching for some trivia on Valentine's Day celebrity Esther Howland, I ran across the (real) factbook entry for Howland Island, and then immediately into the hoax website (ranked today as 1st and 4th, respectively, on google, under the term "Howland"). 
The hoax has some red flags, but in the end is surprisingly believable out of sheer depth; he's included the full text for a constitution, a seating chart for a government assembly hall, a long series of local news articles, and home pages for nearly half a dozen local political parties. His disclaimer is linked from the front page, but sounds like a travel company slogan and is missable. 
I added a three paragraph description of the phenomenon both because I think it is interesting and marginally topical, but also as a prophylaxis against anyone "correcting" the reference material after seeing the hoax.
--Option 17:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This project seems to have almost wholly vanished from the Internet. I glark the author was unhappy his benign socio/political fiction project/hobby was being widley mistaken for a fraudulent micronation (not all of them are meant to be frauds though, some seem to be more or less hobbies followed as role-playing games or whatever and a few may even be sincere, honest takes on "micro-independence"). I don't see any reason to note it in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Abbott "alternate history hoax"

message: Howland Island is a coral island that does not appear to have a central depression as atolls typically do.  According to :  "There is no pronounced beach crest and no central basin (dried up lagoon) such as one usually finds on such flat coral islands. For this reason it was naturally adapted to development as an airfield."  Does that mean it is not an atoll?  A-giau 05:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An atoll?

message: It has been called Earhart light since around 1938. Wyss 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earhart Light

message: This article needs a locator showing the position of the territory in the world. -- Beland 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (It has since been provided.) -- Beland 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where it is supposed to be, but you can move it by editing the x and y coordinates of Template:Howland Island Locator. Good catch, -- Beland 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locator map

message: Was this island REALLY mined for guano? 66.161.222.40 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Si, but not as much as some other islands like Jarvis Island. -Indolences 14:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of these Pacific atolls were literally covered in it. 120 years ago mining the stuff was a cost-effective way to bring fertilizer to market. Gwen Gale 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guano?

message: The standard or conventional style for an article on a geographical location is to identify the location, describe its geography, flora and fauna, climate and then establish its history. IMHO Bzuk 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick and dirty cut and paste re-organization is not helpful. IMHO. Gwen Gale 03:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, but that was not what was happening here. The wording was retained so that no contentious issues of rewrite were involved. It was merely the order of topics that was being addressed. The only revision was an edit of the  one cite/quote which was a bit off. FWIW Bzuk 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording was based on the order of topics. By changing that order the wording and hence, the article, becomes less helpful. Lastly, could you please cite a WP policy which supports your changes? Thanks. Gwen Gale 03:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No wording is changed, but the order that you read them follows a style used in geographic articles. See: Minnesota, Channel Islands, Indo-Gangetic Plain among others. There is no completely accepted style but the above guide is followed in atlas and encyclopedia articles. Policy I believe is intended for the following: 1.1 Behavioral issues, 1.2 Content and style referring to research mainly, 1.3 Deletion, 1.4 Enforcing policies and 1.5 Legal and copyright concerns. FWIW Bzuk 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Flora: grasses. Fauna: Birds. Climate: Hot and dry. History: Discovered, mined, abandoned, colonized, abandoned. --Henry W. Schmitt 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about? Also I made a mistake in my above comment. The Polynesian stuff should be first. -Henry W. Schmitt 04:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and why do you think that? I'm open to discussion. FWIW Bzuk 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just confused about what your 1.1...1.5 stuff has to do with Howland Island. "Why do I think that" what? that the Polynesians came first? Well I would just guess that that stuff happened before the white man came to all of these islands. I don't know if the Polynesians would be sailing around looking for land at that time. -Henry W. Schmitt 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what happened, I was answering another question and there was an "edit conflict" where you were adding your comment. I am fine with either format although I edited a change that was more like the typical encyclopedia article where geography comes first then history – the traditional land and peoples approach of research articles. I have seen many variations on that style in Wikipedia and it looks like anything goes. FWIW Bzuk 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Howland Island is a bleak, dry coral island located just north of the equator, 68 kilometers south of Baker Island. The grassy island is a thriving habitat for Widget birds who in their great numbers over millions of years deposited vast amounts of guano. In an area void of large islands, the nearest volcanic islands are that of the Hawaii group, located 3100 km north-east of Howland. In the mid to late 1800s the island was exploited for its guano by american and british phosphate companies. More recently, just prior to WWII, the US colonized the island, only to later leave after the japanese attacked the island by sea and air, as part of the continuing war for the pacific. Today the *descriptive phrase* island is part of the USMOI and is designated by the US as a wildlife refuge." something like that? -Henry W. Schmitt 05:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Gain some perspective, this comment is very unbecoming. Bzuk 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bzuk, you're a helpful editor. In the future, please discuss significant changes to stable articles before making them and please, don't fall into a revert war, which you've done in the past when you think you're right. I've reflowed and re-written the text to accomodate the new ordering of sections. Everyone would have been saved some time if you had proposed your changes here first. Thanks and all the best to you, as ever. Gwen Gale 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of topics

message: I'm referring to the last sentence of the "Itascatown (1935-1942)" section of the article. It says "Similar colonization projects were started on nearby Baker Island, Jarvis Island, and two other islands."
Do we have any way of identifying these "two other islands"?
FrunkSpace (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are Kanton Island and Enderbury Island, now part of Kiribati. I've added a source in the article. Geobica (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: And two other islands...?

message: It reads, "no airplane is known to have ever landed there". Then how does one explain that photo of an airplane? Varlaam (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the photo which shows clearly a float, aircraft (I will change the colloquialism "airplane" later) could not possibly land at Howland since there is no runway, however, float equipped aircraft or flying boats could berth at a number of shallow anchorages. FWiW, three "roughed-out" runways were built to accommodate the Earhart 1937 World Flight, but were destroyed by the Japanese in World War II. Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the caption could be a little clearer. Varlaam (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See revised statement in relevant passage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "No airplane"

message: The United States has no legal claim to this island, having simply placed 'squatters' on it, and appropriated it, in a similar way as if squatters had set up a tent city in your backyard, and then called it their property.  And then issued an executive order, saying if anyone else tried to also make use of your backyard, they would be forcibly removed.  This method being a repeat of the pattern, they used to squat and steal the land of the Native Americans in North America.  I.e., you have no flag, and we are going to ignore your invisible lines on the ground, and draw our own.  With no inhabitants on the island, any claim upon it by the United States has been relinquished, and it has now reverted to unincorporated territory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point, but an authoritative reference source needs to be cited in order to address this issue in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The US says they own it, and they have the US Navy to control it.  You have an IP address.  Guess who wins?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.107.179 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

text: It's not in any way like squatters setting up in your backyard, since your backyard is recognized as an inhabited area you've already laid legal claim to.  This island was completely uninhibited when the US laid claim to it, and no other sovereign nation had previously made such a claim, so there you go, that's the US's legal claim to it.  Call it res nullius, or "finders keepers," but no other sovereign nation had a previous claim to this island before the U.S. did. 75.71.194.124 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: No claim

message: The hypothesis that Amelia Earhart crashed in the vicinity of Howland Island may be intuitive because AE fans consider it a simple explanation of why the US Navy couldn't find Amelia's plane in Howland Island despite the possibility that there could be faint radio signals coming out of Howland Island. However, there are two problems with this hypothesis. First, Amelia Earhart never said that her plane ran out of fuel or was suffering mechanical problems. Secondly, the Electra would have had to burn fuel fast enough to crash into the sea. As stressed by proponents of the crash and sink hypothesis, the only way to prove that AE crashed her plane into the sea is to search the ocean floor for any aircraft wreckage, 17,000 feet deep. So far, four expeditions have gone to Howland Island to test the hypothesis (the 1999 Williamson and Associates expedition, the 2002 and 2006 Nauticos expeditions, and the 2009 Waitt Institute expedition). However, those expeditions failed to find any trace of NR16020 despite extensive survey of areas of the ocean floor west of Howland Island and Baker Island with AUVs and ROVS (including the hypothetical impact site in the northwest corner of Howland postulated by Elgen Long). All of this shows that the crash-and-sink hypothesis is based on flawed assumptions and misinterpretation of the scope of AE's last transmission regarding the amount of fuel remaining. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Failure to find her aircraft after searching zillions of square miles of ocean floor is hardly conclusive proof that it is not there.  Such a search is far more challenging than a backyard Easter egg hunt in long grass, even when performed by patient, careful adults.  After this many years, the plane could be buried in silt, broken up, mightily corroded, etc.  They could have looked right at it and not recognized it simply because the image did not fit expectations.  Worse, the potential observer could have been momentarily distracted by sipping coffee or sheer boredom.  Howland is still one of the best regions to look based on the scant evidence available.  —EncMstr (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But the crash and sink hypothesis doesn't fully explain why Pan Am received mysterious radio messages coming from the vicinity of Nikumaroro. This is why some Earhart researchers stick to the Nikumaroro hypothesis because it accounts for the alleged post-loss radio transmissions. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amelia's plane not at Howland Island? 

message: Not even some sort of referential nod to C. Elliot Friday?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.221 (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good hello? 

message: It feels like the source (there's only one discussing Howland specifically) is anecdotal at best and refrences artifacts that would have poor preservation (bamboo and wood canoe fragments) or else did not exist in this part of the pacific prior to european contact. I've reached out to US Fish & Wildlife to see if they can provide the comprehensive conservation plan for the island to hopefully provide a concrete answer but really feels like there's missing burden of proof. 5BonusDucks (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at A Brief History of Human Activities in the US Pacific Remote Islands (2o12), the original evidence for pre-Western visits to Howland is from an 1862 description of the island. It mentions excavations, mounds, and other early construction activity, as well as a human skeleton (near the remains of a hut, bamboo, the blue bead, and canoe fragments). He also speculates humans brought at least one tree species, rats, and lizards to the island. I agree what's in the current text seems overstated based on the evidence (and it looks like Hague's 1902 description in the note is less detailed than his 1862 version I'm looking at). I'll see about making some WP:BOLD edits later today. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Archaeology of the Pacific Equatorial Islands cites the same evidence as well as discussion a few potential sites but all are reported in the late 19th/early 20th century well after European occupation of the island. Still waiting on FWS reply; will update. 5BonusDucks (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: US FWS provides much of the same shaky sourcing but does support the conclusion that Howland was not permanently inhabited. US Army Corps conducted a survey in 1987 including sub-surface testing. I have a FOIA request in to get a copy will update main page asap.  5BonusDucks (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prehistory section anecdotal