Talk:Steve Fossett

Location of the wreckage

Please check the coordinates 38° 29'11.97"N, 118° 59'38.80"W in Google Earth. This must be the location of the crashed plane. Source itsme (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place for that - this is for discussing the article, not searching for him. -- Mark Chovain 23:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And we don't know the expertise of the reviewers of the source. (SEWilco (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

• A map put out by the local sheriff seems to indicate it was in the Ansel Adams Wilderness around 37.669°N 119.131°W / 37.669; -119.131 -71.140.63.206 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Fossett might not have crashed at all!

I think for the past past seven months or so, the assumption has been that, he (Steve Fossett) has crashed somewhere. As far as it seems there should be at least a 10% chance that he never crashed anywhere, or he simply landed somewhere he did not want any body to know or he for some reason was forced to land somewhere by someone, and then something bad happened to him. All I am suggesting is that, we should be open minded to the possibility that the mater should be also criminally investigated by the police. I just think it would be worth to look at this case from this angle too. Please read more carefully, I am not suggesting any conspiracy theories I am talking about a 10% chance of other possibilities after all you don’t have any proof that he crashed anywhere do you? Thanks for reading,

B. Abadi North Vancouver Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.240.154 (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I repeated the same thing to myself about Amelia Earhart when I was a little girl, that she found herself a sweet predator-free tropical island for her and her beaut to dally the rest of their days in.99.226.65.111 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for conspiracy theories. True, he might have had to make a forced landing rather than crashing, but even then, if you really understand how vast an area this desert is, and the fact that he had no survival equipment, it will become apparent that even then his chances of survival were slim. Unless he shows up in Mojave on the 28th for the rollout of the plane being named after him, let's leave the conspiracy theories to that other Nevada location. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think discussion of the conspiracy theory is valid. It might not be true, but the conspiracy itself exists, and applies to the subject of this article. So spare us your petty arrogance. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, discussion of it is valid, no question about that. At issue is the degree to which such speculation belongs in an encyclopedic article. There's already a paragraph on the pseudocide topic, and I'm not averse to seeing that section grow a bit as new information arises or credible authorities weigh in on the topic.BoKu (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Psuedocide

Investigators have questioned Fossett's financial situation, his choice of a light aircraft for the flight, and the fact he left his global positioning system watch at home.

Should this be added? Although I have also heard the reason for a speculated "psuedocide" is the life insurance company doesn't want to pay the $50 million. *sorry, I signed the post before login in* Arthur Curry (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

When I go on short or vague flights, I never file a flight plan, and might leave the GPS in the car. If he was just doing a little sightseeing or searching, those are hardly suspicious or foolhardy. Flight plans have a hassle component: if you change your mind about the route, time, or destination, an amendment is needed, or cancel the filing—why file one then? If you don't know where you're going, a flight plan becomes useless.

I take it as a given than no insurance company wants to pay a claim, even when there is zero question it's valid. Any increase in doubt probably serves to exponentially increase their resistance. —EncMstr (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it's just weasel words unless we can provide the name of the investigator (or at least the name of the investigating agency) and a citation to a credible report. Without names and cites it's all a bunch of he-said-she-said.BoKu (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GPS; Don't cellphones have those? This was like, in 2007, and don't almost every cellphone could be traced by then? That would have made the search a lot easier. As for why he left his GPS at home, well, maybe his vast experience has left him /arrogant/, that happens. You coasted through a million storms and you get yourself a false sense of immortality. 99.226.65.111 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

new source

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039731/Secret-lovers-Hidden-bank-accounts-And-sign-plane-wreck-Did-Richard-Bransons-balloon-buddy-fake-death.html

The Daily Mail also speculated that Fossett did not die citing that the aircraft he used was one that he disliked but that could be easily dismantled. They also cite that he did not wear his GPS watch nor filed a flight plan, two things that he usually did when flying.

The above is only two sentences. This doesn't overwhelm the article but adds knowledge. I can't add this to the article for some reason. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it adds any particular knowledge. It's a Daily Mail tabloid article, rife with errors and misdirection. It alleges all sorts of stuff with no substantiation. Davis, it's central source, is definitely not impartial, he has a vested interest in the topic.BoKu (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All it tells me is that the writers clearly have little aviation knowledge. Flight plans are mainly used for point to point, IFR flights. For a sightseeing VFR flight, it would have been very unusual, and impractical, to file a VFR flight plan. I seriously doubt that anyone from the Daily Mail has ever dismantled a Bellanca. I have...and it's not that easy, especially for a single person. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing the year of death

As there is no credible evidence of when Fossett died, or if he died, I am changing the 2007 deaths category to Year of death unknown (or Year of death disputed). --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the above point is moot now, but if human remains are located it may be possible to say he died on the same day he went missing. 23skidoo (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not moot unless you have evidence that his remains have been found. Any claims not supported by tangible evidence are speculation. SeeWP:VERIFY. —Danorton (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually disagree that there is any real disagreement as to the year of death. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of sources by far, even before the discovery of the wreckage, including the court declaration, consider he died on or soon after he went missing, definitely within 3 months. The fact that one or two newspapers ran the odd sensationalistic story doesn't mean there is genuine dispute anymore then there is a dispute as to who was behind the September 11th attacks (note the article isn't in a Attacks by unknown parties cat). The only thing which perhaps suggests a dispute is the insurance company. If the insurance company genuinely disputes he's dead then that's definitely a dispute worth noting. On the other hand, the source provided is not clear on whether the insurance company disputes he's dead or just that one investigator. So IMHO the cat should probably go back in per WP:UNDUE. It's probably fine to leave the section on pseudocide theories provided it doesn't get longer then it is currently. P.S. Obviously we can't say precisely when he died, but that's quite different from saying his year of death is unknown Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's reasonable doubt, there's what we believe, and then there's facts and statements supported by reliable secondary sources. Those sources don't indicate that the death is known. They indicate that the death declaration is known and they indicate they many (most?) believe he's dead. Let's leave the death as unknown for now and give them some time to search and analyze some more. Let's see what the conclusions of the reliable secondary sources are. I think this can wait a few weeks. This is an encyclopedia, not a daily news source. Wikipedia's foundation is not on what we believe is true, it is on what we can verify through reliable secondary sources. —Danorton (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that the vast majority of reliable secondary sources agree he's dead, and died at the time of or not longer after the crash and this was BEFORE the latest developments (in other words, the latest developments have nothing to do with it). Yes, we may get the odd sensationalistic story, but these are more akin to conspiracy theories about Elvis or September 11th then real disagreements that he's dead. If you disagree with that, I guess that's up to you. As it stands, it's a moot point since although I stand by my claims, it's not yet clear enough for us to come out an say it. (One of the unfortunate, although necessary aspects of wikipedia is that when something is bluntly obvious to most people, no one actually bothers to say it since it's bluntly obvious and so we can't say it either.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I withdraw my comments. While I still don't think there is substanial/resonable disagreement he's dead, even before the discovery of the wreckage (look at this [1] for example), most sources aren't as explicitly as I suggested. Actually in retrospect it's not really that surprising. From read the sources, I think it's quite clear most of them don't doubt he's dead and died either on or not longer after the crash, however they don't just come out and say it, since that's not really the way the media works in cases like this. To be clearer on this matter, we'd need to wait until further in the future, when all the biographies and articles which mention him, mention him as presumed dead or dead after a crash in 2007. However given the latest developments we probably won't need to wait that long Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Actually on further thought, year of death unknown is completely wrong. Firstly, it implies that he either died in 2007 or 2008. It doesn't imply he may still be alive which is the main other contention. Secondly according to the description "This category is for people known to be dead but whose year of death is lost to history and never likely to be known". Perhaps 50 years from now you could argue the cat would be appropriate, but definetely not now. The best fit cat is perhaps Category:Disappeared people. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think Glenn Miller and Amelia Earhart are good examples here. Note in both cases their years of death are listed as 1937 and 1944. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight we can see most the vast majority of sources agree on the year of death as would have happened in this case even without the wreckage. I strongly suspect that similarly, not that long after their death most sources already agreed when they died eventhough they perhaps didn't say it. In other words, it's not as if in those cases (or this case) people came to believe over time that they must have died around the time they went missing. It's that most sources already agreed quite early, they just didn't say it explicitly. This doesn't change anything about how we handle this case, but I have to admit I'm still a bit surprised that some people think there is substanial disagreement in the sources Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove speculation?

What are you thoughts about including speculation in this article, specifically speculation that is unsupported by any tangible evidence, but only by theories of dramatic possibilities? —Danorton (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently listed as a good article under various WikiProjects, and slapping unverified, unsourced speculation jeapodises this status. Of course, a theory or hypothesis that can be sourced should be fine - like the faked death speculation. But drawing conclusions in the article should be left out - that's up to the reader! Booglamay (talk) - 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like at least part of the text you've scrubbed is a copyvio of this CNN article. Booglamay (talk) - 19:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you distinguish between "theory", "hypothosis", and "speculation?" — Danorton (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I said theory/hypothesis, I meant the section regarding the Daily Telegraph article. By speculation, I was referring to the unsourced (or at best, badly-sourced) claims made by various editors (particularly IPs) such as [2], [3] and [4]. Speculation on cause, date, and location of death etc. Booglamay (talk) - 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on those, remember this is wikipedia and encylopaedia, not wikinews Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mystery of his Personal Belongings Being So Far From The Wreck

I propose creating a section on this in the article itself:

His personal belongings (sweater, ID cards and money) were found a quarter of a mile from his wrecked airplane. How could this have happened? The FAA says no one could have survived the force of the crash. He had no parachute-- the crash occured September 3rd (so his sweater could not have blown across the snow). Even large animals will not usually drag a body 1/4 of a mile.

65.101.218.54 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

->From Yahoo News

"...his remains were probably devoured by wild animals."[5]--$JJOlsen$ 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia category for celebrities who were devoured by wild animals? --$JJOlsen$ 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look under paparazzi. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually != never. Assuming he died in the wreck, his body's been out there for over a year. Plenty of possibilities for how the IDs moved, from larger animals dragging the body, to smaller ones moving just the ID, to them being thrown by the force of the impact. There's really nothing suspicious or signifigant in the fact of the distance, IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are many possibilities: animals carrying heavier items away, the wind carrying the paper objects, etc. And it's important to keep in mind that as of the moment [6] Fossett's death is not officially confirmed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also possible he wasn't actually wearing the coat, and that it contained his stuff, and the plane spun and spilled the coat before the crash. Any number of possibilities. The investigators should have it all figured out relatively soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please no, not another CIA conspiracy theory in the making based on "known facts"... Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, when he crashed, the stocks were on high, and a year later it's the other way around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He's dead

At this point it's highly unlikely that the human remains inside the crashed plane are not Fossett. It's time to just call him dead and take the declared legally dead stuff out of the lede and the infobox. The legally dead part now deserves no more than a sentence in the section on his death. Taking a long term (encyclopedic) viewpoint, the article is supposed to be about the man's life, not trivia about his death.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The "declared legally dead" could be relegated to a detail in the article at this point. Although one edit summary said "Fossett Remains Found" edit summary, it is also true that "Fossett Remains Dead". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's likely that he's dead and that the found remains are his, but it's not about what you or I consider to be likely. A core policy of Wikipedia is verifiability. Information in Wikipedia articles comes from reliable secondary sources. If you find a reliable secondary source that reports that he is dead, then it would be appropriate for the article to reflect that. From WP:VERIFY:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

This is an encyclopedia, not a daily news tabloid. I imagine that this will all be concluded as we expect within a couple of weeks. Patience. —Danorton (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And in furtherance of the "Still Dead" thing, I don't think it's necessary for the lead to mention twice that he was declared legally dead on such-and-such a date. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it's generally better to avoid repetition, but in this instance I believe it's helpful, as it establishes context for the next level of detail. The date he went missing is similarly duplicated, I believe for the same reason. If you can come up with a better lead section that's more concise and at least as easy to follow, by all means edit boldly! —Danorton (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of what's bothering me about that lead is that it's got too much detail. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and everything footnoted within it should normally be footnoted instead in the body (pardon the ironic metaphor) of the article text. To put it another way, there shouldn't be anything in the summary that isn't already in the text. Or so I've often read in these types of discussions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And as far as the "being bold" part, I've found for rapidly-changing articles that it's better to debate on the talk page at length, in hopes of reaching something resembling consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "bold" guideline does prominently feature the "but be careful" caveat. ;-) —Danorton (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's noy such much about being careful as it is about wasting energy on a page that's volatile. In the lead, I might list the dates at the top as they are, footnoted; and summarize the missing / legally dead info in a single next-to-last sentence in the lead, without footnotes, especially the one cited twice for the same bit of information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't consider a re-org of the lead section until things have settled down for a few days, at least. —Danorton (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought

So how's this for a twist?

"However, Madera County Sheriff John Anderson said later that what searchers had found was a piece of bone that was 2 inches by 1 and a half inches in size. He said it was unclear if it was human - and added that he did not know of any confirmed human remains being found."[7] (emphasis added)

There will be all kinds of twists and turns before this is all over. Let's stick with what's stable and reliable. —Danorton (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The plane itself likely took plenty of twists and turns before crashing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Finding a 2 inch piece of bone does not confirm that a particular human is dead. We can wait for coroners reports/DNA testing. Edison (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The USAToday article states that some human remains were found. The article also talks about planes that crashed in the Sierras that are either still missing or that were only found decades after the fact. By implication, they were lucky to have found this one so quickly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fossett Dead, Body Parts Found (Not)

There's a lot of slop out there. I'm glad it's (mostly) staying out of this article. For example:

• Fossett died instantly as plane hit mountain in cloud
• Body parts found among Fossett wreckage

In fairness, the "body parts" confusion probably results from a misunderstanding of the term we use refer to matter from a cadaver, i.e. "remains." Though plural in form, it doesn't necessarily mean more than one item. None of the reliable news reports mention more than the single bone fragment. —Danorton (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My theory at this point is that Fossett was having some KFC for lunch, and bailed out when he saw the plane headed for the mountain, and some of the chicken bones remained. Once safely on the ground, he met D.B. Cooper and they headed off towards Craterville. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and he's spending Thanksgiving with Elvis. Let's hope they find some conclusive evidence to end all the speculation and so that the poor bloke can RIP. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, RIP, or as the saying goes, "Rest In Pieces". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

DNA confirmed as Fossett's (not)

I don't know anything about www.aviation.ca or the source of this article they published and they cite no specific references:

• Search for Steve Fossett Ends in Eastern California Mountains

("Federal officials have confirmed that DNA from Steve Fossett was found on Thursday.")

—Danorton (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And, although they don't say it's Fossett's DNA, I expected better from The Guardian (UK):

• Human DNA found in wreckage of Fossett's plane (video)

(The video is raw and no one mentions DNA in it.)

—Danorton (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But this is what I expect from The Sun (UK):

• Body found in Fossett wreck

It goes on to say "MUTILATED body parts were found ...". Sigh.

—Danorton (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It also has to be considered that they might not find much remains. I recall when that golfer Paine Stewart's plane went down in 1999 that although they got to the plane right away, there was very little left to actually put in the coffin. When a plane augers-in, everything disintegrates. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources indicate that only four bone fragments were found and they're not looking for more (this year). At this point, there's no reliable secondary source that indicates that they're human. —Danorton (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Until reliable evidence emerges to the contrary, I'm sticking with my KFC theory. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive detail?

Since the article read that a hiker found personal items near Mammoth Lakes, I wanted to know how near, and determined the distance to be about 12 km (for Americans: thats about 7.5 miles). I entered this information into the article, thinking that near is a vague term (Fort Lauderdale is near Miami, Alaska is near Russia) that should only be used in an encyclopedia when the nearness cannot be quantified in any detail. To me, that's like writing Los Angeles is large or Rhode Island is small, instead of providing at least a rough magnitude of population or area. However, Danorton removed this information quickly as "excessive detail". What do you guys think? Is he right? If so, can we also remove the "excessive detail" as to the date when the personal items of Steve Fosset were found? On September 29, 2008 might be excessive detail in the temporal dimension, just as 12 miles WNW of Mammoth Lakes is excessive detail in the geographic dimension. The point in time could be vaguely described as "late summer 2008", just as the geographical point is described as "near Mammoth Lakes".--Ratzer (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, Ratzer made this change, which I subsequently reverted, and which he restored without discussion:

On September 29, 2008, a hiker found personal items, cash, and identification documents confirmed as Fossett's in the Inyo National Forest, near 12 km WNW of Mammoth Lakes, California.

—Danorton (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not restore anything, with or without discussion. This is a false accusation.--Ratzer (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My remark resulted from my confusion. I stand corrected and I apologize. —Danorton (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as Ratzer made the change he suggested, we might as well discuss that, too:

On September 29, 2008 In the late summer of 2008, a hiker found personal items...

My only comment is that I don't feel that the relationship between a date and season compares very well with the relationship between a forest name and its distance in kilometers from an city that is obscure to most people. It's not the literal meaning of the words, but also the poetic impression. e.g. Even though "In the late summer of 2008" is less specific, it seems to add a poetic sense that is probably not intended. —Danorton (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thought just occurred to me: while a goal of the lead should be conciseness, detail should be sufficient as to avoid confusion. They need to be judicially balanced. "Near Mammoth Lakes" is more concise than "12 km WNW from Mammoth Lakes"; it is less precise, but it is at no greater risk of confusion. "Late summer of 2008", however, could result in confusion with at least one other Fossett search during that same period of time. —Danorton (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that while September 29 is certainly "late September", it is not "late summer" - it's "early fall". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Or really early winter! I reverted it. —Danorton (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that they're expecting snow soon, I reckon it really is early winter, practically speaking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that my latest change of the article lead to a discussion. Unfortunately, there is not much input, except from Danorton, on the question whether near or 12 km WNW of (or perhaps 12 km from or eight miles from) is better. I think a more precise qualification of the location is important here because the fact that no trace of Steve Fossett had been found for a long time seems in outright contradiction that his crash occurred anywhere near a populated place. Which inevitably leads to the question, how near. 100 yards? 1 Mile? 5 miles? 10 miles? 20 miles? 30 miles? What is the upper and lower limit of near? What is its mean or meadian value? If Danorton is the only one who prefers near over a more precise qualification, I shall take the liberty to restitute the latter.--Ratzer (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this as a personal issue. This isn't about you or me or any of our differences. We all share the common goal of improving Wikipedia. "Near" is not intended to be a precise measurement, and precise details aren't necessary in the lead. The lead intends to give a basic overview of the article's subject. If you want to know how "near," read further. In Manhattan, "near" is 3-4 blocks. In Wyoming, it's probably 40-50 miles in the summer, 15-30 miles in the winter. If none of the place names are familiar, then I expect most readers take "near" to mean the nearest significantly populated area. Personally, 12 km from Mammoth Lakes has the same meaning to me as 9 nanometers (4.5×10⁻¹¹ furlongs) from Nowheresville (town). The lead isn't about detail, it's about providing a concise capsule of the subject. (p.s. if you want your edit to remain, put the distance in a measurement that's consistent with the article: miles or or use miles with the {{convert}} template). —Danorton (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We do share a common goal, so it's nothing personal. 12 km or 8 miles is not a precise measurement, 7.85 miles would be one. Instead of WNW we can use the less precise but perhaps less confusing directional description "northwest" or just "west". I would not omit the direction completely, since east of Mammoth Lakes is Highway 395, where an early discovery of the crash would have been even more likely. Let's first see if anyone else has an opinion about this.--Ratzer (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the GPS co-ords of the crash site based on the center of the FAA exclusion zone that was set up around the site. This point of interest is pretty much halfway between Mammoth Lakes and Minaret Peaks, so I've described as such. I hope that settles the issue. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that readers want to know the distance to the closest town. They can calculate it from the coordinates, or measure it from a map or satellite image, but what is the big deal of putting this information into the article, so they can just simply read it?--Ratzer (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify the issues here. The "excessive detail" issue I raised in an edit summary was regarding excessive detail in the lead section. I don't have any issue with more detail further down in the article. That lead sentence of the "Discovery of wreckage" section, however, was becoming a mouthful and I'm glad to see that an editor broke it up into two sentences. Ratzer, I don't think anyone would mind you adding to that section the distance to the crash site from NowheresvilleMammoth Lakes, as long as it reads well. Consider posting your suggestion here first, if you're concerned it might get reverted or disputed. —Danorton (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What's missing?

Any ideas for things that should be included in this article, but aren't? The information must be verifiable from reliable secondary sources. (The sources don't need to be online resources, but they need to be fully identifiable.) If you can think of something and can properly cite it (preferably with a {{cite}} template), add it to the article. If you know about it, but don't have time to update the article, list it here with a link to supporting secondary source. If you're pretty sure it's true, but can't find a reliable secondary source, list it here, anyway. Someone can then search for supporting reliable secondary sources. Thanks. —Danorton (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Philanthropy: someone above mentioned "philanthropy", but didn't follow up with details or references. Is there no evidence of philanthropy? Is there evidence to the contrary? —Danorton (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculation on faked death

This speculative section does not meet the Wikipedia requirements for reliability and has no factual basis whatsoever. Furthermore, this conspiracy theory is irrelevant now that the crash site has been found. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Until Fossett himself is confirmed dead (which is not the case), the conspiracy theory, however silly, still has some currency. He could always have done a D.B. Cooper and bailed out before the plane crashed. The location of some of his stuff, quite a ways from the crash, still needs a good explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The speculation itself is newsworthy and is documented with reasonable references. I absolutely agree that the speculation was baseless and possibly malicious. But at the same time I recognize that people did speculate, there were a couple of newspaper articles, and Lloyd's man did stir up some dirt. I think it's reasonable to mention that those things happened in an encyclopedic article.BoKu (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They stirred up some dirt in an encyclopedic article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – The information is accurately reported as speculation. There is no question to the reliability of the fact that the speculation occurred. If the news sources were deemed unreliable, then I would support deletion of this section, but that does not seem to be the case here. —Danorton (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)