Talk:Maria Theresa Reef

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

Oceania

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current article on Maria Theresa Reef has this passage:

"An amateur's radio journal "CQ" in 1966 published a photo and description of Don Miller broadcasting from what he claimed was Maria Teresa Reef.[2] This has been since proven to be a hoax."

No reference is provided for the claim that it "has been since proven to be a hoax". That is a controversial claim. How was it "proven"? The article merely says that an expedition failed to find the reef. That in itself does not "prove" that Don Miller's 1960's claim was a hoax; there should be some better reference than that, showing that it was a hoax, if this controversial (potentially libelous if false) claim is left in the article.

The reef may still be there now but is hard to locate, or (having been barely above water) it may have washed away before the later expedition, or it may never have existed at all. This is unknown. Since a number of ostensibly reliable ships' reports described the reef earlier, in detail, the burden is on the accuser to prove "hoax" or at least cite some published evidence that it was a hoax. --99.93.117.200 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic