Talk:Nikumaroro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polynesia
Oceania Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, which collaborates on articles related to Polynesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Micronesia
Micronesia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Micronesia, which collaborates on articles related to Micronesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Oceania may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] 29 settlers from where?

Twenty-nine islanders were settled there - from where? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

These were copra workers recruited from sundry Polynesian islands. Arundel had operations on many central Pacific islands during this period. Wyss 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The American Polynesia referrence says that they were from Niue, and called the island "Motu oonga" or island of the coconut crabs. The book also quotes Albert F. Ellis, saying that Arundel and Co. planted coconuts there in the 1880's.

Pustelnik (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They did indeed. One can still see remnants of the groves on the island's northwest corner. The coconut crabs are still there and are, as ever, very nettlsome to visitors. Historically, Pacific islanders visiting the island would catch and eat them. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I took out this sentence: Guano deposits weren't found and the US claim was given up in 1882. It needs citation.

American Polynesia states that it was claimed uner the Guano Act of 1856 (added to article) "But there is no record of guano having been dug." Nothing about the claim being given up. Pustelnik (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
These claims would lapse if guano wasn't mined. Moreover, claims to islands in the Pacific had to be backed up (in practice) by some kind of occupation and development. By the early 1880s, when Americans had done nothing to further the decades-old guano claim to Gardner, the British swooped in and claimed the island themselves, this time for Arundel's coconut/copra production business. Although this project failed, nobody else laid claim to the island (it is off the shipping routes, very isolated, had no guano, very hot and although something to behold, not too friendly to people, unlike many Pacific islands) and when the British came back in the late 30s to develop the island for transplanting Gilbertese colonists there the Americans still had no meaningful interest in the island. There was a bit of diplomatic back-and-forth between the UK and the US about a handful of other islands (notably Kanton) during this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gardiners_Island Gardiners_Bay Gardner_Island Nikumaroro

Gardiners_Island Gardiners_Bay Gardner_Island Nikumaroro

Hopiakuta 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Gardner_Pinnacles

Hopiakuta 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AP story

Amelia Earhart standed on Nikumaroro? http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/01/earhart.mystery.ap/index.html 24.199.153.73 12:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The claim that there is documented evidence of Earhart and Noonan crash-landing on Gardner Island

It is merely a claim and as stated, there is no collaborated evidence to back it up so it is therefore only a theory and should be considered just that. Bzuk 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Collaborated? You more likely meant corroborated. Speaking of word usage, evidence can support a hypothesis but not prove it. The Gardner island hypothesis is supported by much confirmed documentation and evidence, but has not been proven. Gwen Gale 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also say that the Gardner island hypothesis does not specify a crash landing, but a more or less successful landing on the reef flat. Gwen Gale 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is a hypothesis that is not supported by corroborated scientific analysis at this point and does not rise to the level of a theory. We are both expressing the same views, merely semantics is the issue. Bzuk 12:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Glad to hear we seem to agree. However, I must say, the hypothesis is indeed supported by scientific analysis but this support has not yet resulted in what a consensus of professional historians would characterize as proof. Moreover, the term theory simply doesn't apply here: This is neither a scientific model meant to explain a naturalistic process, nor popular speculation. Gwen Gale 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for correcting the date in the reference, my botch, meant to fix it but got distracted. Gwen Gale 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No "seem"– we agree here. My contention is that it is an interesting, even fascinating hypothesis and that it would be amazing if there would eventually be evidence to support the claims of Earhart and Noonan surviving, albeit even for a brief period, following the harrowing end to their World Flight attempt. Bzuk 12:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
We don't know (opinions about likelihoods are another tale), but there is some evidence that, if they did land on Gardner, Noonan may have died of injuries within days or weeks while Earhart may have survived much longer. There is even an open possibility she was still alive when a survey party from New Zealand arrived there in 1938 (ironically, to check into whether or not the island was suitable for a landing strip). Nikumaroro is bigger than it looks: A few members of the New Zealand team almost got into deep trouble trying to walk around the atoll. By the time they passed near where the skeleton of a white, northern European female was later found, they were struggling with thirst and fatigue. She may have been alive when they staggered by the "castaway's" campsite (this is a stretch to utter speculation though, harrowing nevertheless). Gwen Gale 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwich city debris

The debris has been widely scattered at least since 2004 and this article has described it as such since February 2004. To describe the debris as scattered "by 2006" implies that it was not scattered before that time. Gwen Gale 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement: "although by 2006 only scattered heavy debris including the ship's massive steam boilers and hull fragments remained." does not imply anything other than when the observation was made in 2006, the boilers and hull fragments were still visible. FWIW, we may be arguing over the same point. The vessel was beached in 1929 and the remains are still in place, whether it will still be possible to see them in 2007, is not determined; however, the ship's boilers and pieces of the hull were seen recently in 2006. Bzuk 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
With all due respect Bzuk, your take on this (including your own writing) is mistaken and moreover, I'm so sad to see you edit warring over it. Please have a shufti at WP:POINT. Meanwhile, all the best to you! Gwen Gale 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The date is merely the most recent confirmation of a significant landmark. When and if the '07 expedition reports on the sighting of the Norwich wreckage, then it would be appropriate to update the date again. FWIW Bzuk 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
You're mistaken is all, as is the text you've written, which will mislead readers. Gwen Gale 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The passage states that the wreck took place in 1929, was prominent for 70 years and after that only debris remained and that by 2006, only the boilers and hull fragments were still present. FWIW Bzuk 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC).