Talk:Amelia Earhart

TIGHAR's Earhart Project, which is cited elsewhere in the article, suggests the possibility of a landing on Gardner Island and eventual starvation. Not sure if this classifies as conspiracy or is worth including as a researched possibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darling58 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Extremely well-researched possibility and a source for additional points that the article should be making, including the US's classification of its report on Earhart's disappearance until 1982 on the basis that Earhart's poor planning and the Navy's poor effort both reflected badly on Roosevelt, whom Earhart had warmly supported and whose wife Eleanor greatly admired her. (This source mentions Henry Morgenthau 'reportedly' withholding the report but TIGHAR apparently has the guy's side of a phone call with one of Eleanor's people transcribed from where it interrupted an unrelated meeting.)

There is a difference, though, between official documents hosted by TIGHAR (authoritative but primary and better sourced to official government sites or published works when possible) and their own contested conclusions based on those (noteworthy but currently only one read of the available info). Even so, the current text

...despite numerous expeditions, no link between Earhart and the island has ever been found...

is entirely mistaken and has no basis in the NY Times article it's cited to, which covers many of the main points of the Gardner Island bit of Speculation on the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. There are many 'links' between Earhart and the island including triangulation at the time, simply none that have been conclusively confirmed.

Mention of Gardner (now Nikumaroro) should include their search and the previous remains removed from the island but also the lack of a smoking gun. — LlywelynII 21:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart did not die on January 5, 1939. Could someone please reverse that to "declared dead" and readd "disappeared" or whatever the infobox looked like until recently? Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to do this yourself though in the future; the old form was still in the revision history (bad edits on June 10, so any time before that). That said, good catch. (The either vandal or deeply misguided editor stacked an irrelevant edit on top of the bad edits, so only looking at the most recent edit on the watchlist wouldn't have revealed this.) SnowFire (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I would've but I'm really busy rn. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems odd that there’s no mention of the Earhart Award that is part of the cadet program of the Civil Air Patrol. See https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/cadets/stripes-to-diamonds/earhart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.87.115.134 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

There have been thousands of tributes to Earhart; far too many for Wikipedia to cover exhaustively. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The Earhart family's finances seemingly improved with the acquisition of a new house and the hiring of two servants, but it soon became apparent that Edwin was an alcoholic. In 1914 he was forced to retire. He attempted to rehabilitate himself through treatment but the Rock Island Railroad never reinstated him. At about this time Earhart's grandmother Amelia Otis died. She left a substantial estate that placed her daughter's share in a trust, fearing tjhat Edwin's drinking would exhaust the funds. The Otis house was auctioned along with its contents and Amelia later described these events as the end of her childhood. ~2026-59897-9 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The text suggests that she was one of the first to cross the atlantic as a passenger. She was one of the first pilots to cross the Atlantic and the first woman to pilot solo across the Atlantic. If she was a passenger that suggests that someone else flew the plane, which was not the case. ~2026-11529-24 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you read any further into the article beyond the second sentence? If not, please do. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The OP has raised a valid point, but then spoilt things by making serious errors. Your answer @Anastrophe hasn't explained anything for any other editors reading this. I will attempt to address both issues.

Amy was the first woman to cross the Atlantic by aircraft. But she was not on her own, and was both a passenger and a co-pilot. I believe the OP has failed to notice that this refers to the earlier 1928 crossing, which was famous at the time, until eclipsed by her 1932 solo crossing.

So let's focus on that 1928 crossing;

She made it clear that the role of a mere passenger held no appeal to her—she wanted the opportunity to take her turn at the controls. Although she lacked experience with multi-engine aircraft and non-visual instrument flying, it was agreed that, weather permitting, she would be allowed to pilot the aircraft for a portion of the journey.

The lede describes her simply as a passenger, whereas in fact she was one co-pilot amongst a group of three pilots on-board. (there had been a fourth pilot; leaving Boston, backup pilot Lou Gower voluntarily stepped down from the crew to further lighten the aircraft.)

Is there any source that states categorically that she didn't take the controls, even if only for 5 minutes?

It was written into her flight contract that Earhart would hold the title of commander aboard Friendship. She was granted final authority over all matters of policy, procedure, personnel, and any other issues that might arise during the mission—at least until their arrival in London. Both Wilmer Stultz and Louis Gordon would serve as her subordinates during the flight.

Have I missed anything?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record; I did manage to find one comment that Amy was merely a passenger, but that was in the Coolidge Review (Amanda Bellows), written in 2025, long after the same comment was already here on Wikipedia. To mitigate the possibility that they are copying us, followed by us quoting them WP:CIRCULAR, I'm really hoping for a contemporary source. WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

None of this contradicts what the second sentence of the article says. Whether she was just a passenger, or both a passenger and pilot, it still remains that she was the first female passenger to cross the Atlantic by airplane. The body of the article has further details supporting what the lede says - "Earhart, although a licensed pilot, had no experience with non-visual, instrument-only flying, and was therefore unable to take the controls". You've stated emphatically that she was a co-pilot based on promises made prior to the flight. I would think the sourced content describing the actual flight would take precedence. Now, if the sources supporting these statement are incorrect or misrepresented - that's a different matter that needs fixing. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, allow me to stress that we are having an editorial discussion here, not an argument. I have no skin in this game except improving Wikipedia, and improving myself at the same time if that is possible. I also assume WP:GOODFAITH in respect of your good self.

So, the second sentence stresses that she was a passenger, as opposed to leaving the matter hanging. For that I would want to see positive proof.

The quote you provide has flaws (IMO) and is not supported by any immediate citation, which is one of the key issues here. Who says she was unable to take the controls. Citation please!

You say that I state emphatically that she was a co-pilot; my apologies - I didn't realise I had leaned on it quite that hard. But, since you query it, she was a co-pilot; there are plenty of commercial flights where a second pilot is there, but never actually takes the controls.

As for the flaws in that quotation; it implies that the flight was totally IMC from start to finish, but after reading 20 Hrs.40 Min I get the impression that there were portions of the flight that would today qualify as VMC. Quite what the exact regulations were back in 1928, I cannot say. Here are some quotes from that book;

As we left Newfoundland we flew about 1000 ft. over the land. I watch the shapes of the many lakes, large and small, which cover the terrain.

There is very blue sky above and when last I saw H₂O it was also brilliant.

We are at 5000 now getting out of fog, but into a storm. A flurry of snow just passed below. I can see clear weather to right, but not ahead.

The sea below looks fairly placid, but of course the surface appears flat from 3000.

I see some clear sea ahead and the air is getting bumpy, as one would expect between areas of cloud and sun.

I see clouds coming. They lie on the horizon like a long shore line.

The clouds look like icebergs in the distance.

These quotes cover a variety of conditions at differing times throughout the flight, from maintaining contact with the surface below, having clear air on all sides in order to avoid other air traffic (not really a problem in 1928), and being able to see some kind of horizon.

I concede that what I haven't found in that book so far, is any direct statement to the effect that she is about to take the controls, or has just completed a stint. That is slightly worrying, but in truth I have only skimmed through the text at high speed.

I hope all of the above doesn't come across as too emphatic (Lol); I am simply trying to convey that there were clear (no pun intended) opportunities for Amy to take the controls and fly VFR. Any statement to the contrary should have an in-line citation backed by a good WP:RS.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader: The primary source of Earhart's own diary is interesting, but Wikipedia generally prefers WP:SECONDARY sources, especially on heavily covered topics like Earhart. We'd want to see what serious biographers and aviation historians said about this flight, and Earhart's own words are more like supporting material. If you have any such high-quality secondary sources to integrate into the article, please do. SnowFire (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@SnowFire I do not have any sources at all, which leaves us with a problem. The article claims she was a passenger, but so far I see nothing to back that up. In that respect, my second-class primary source beats plain fresh air. Like you, I am hoping someone will come up with a high-quality secondary source to support "passenger", or not. WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The section "First woman to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 1928" direly needs a rewrite sourced largely to high-quality sources rather than random webpages, but it's not completely lacking. In particular, the accounts in "The Sound of Wings: The Life of Amelia Earhart" should probably be prioritized. The Internet Archive isn't working for me at the moment, but assuming the quote in the (dead) TIGHAR page is accurate, Earhart was quoted as being frustrated at not being able to do more on this trip. What would there be to be frustrated about if she was already the co-pilot?

To be clear, if you want to help out with this article, great! It can use it. Just... the preferred style would be to start with reading two or three really good biographies (the serious kind, not the conspiracy theory kind), then going in and summarizing and representing what they say, including on the matter of this 1928 flight. And then update the lead section with a summary of the summary. That would be an amazing service if you were willing to take it on. SnowFire (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Cracking stuff! as Wallace might have said to Gromit, or was it something Wallis said to Simpson (Homer), or maybe I'm just very mixed up here. I've got 31 browser windows open right now, and 28 are related to Wikipedia edits, so the kind of dedicated slog you propose is obviously not my natural style. On the other hand, minor edits such as changing a full-stop here and a semi-colon there whilst racking up the edit count isn't my scene either. So I might just be tempted by your plea for help, even though I cannot remember how I ended up on Amelia's page in the first place.

First off, I am struggling to gain access to Lovell's book at Internet Archive; they've shown me pages 1-10 in full, but want actual money for the remaining 458 pages. The search function works if you get the right keyword, and I managed to pull up some gems;

(Page 140) Both Amelia and George reacted again when Elinor mentioned that so far no woman had been allowed to fly the large and powerful airplanes being manufactured by Fokker or Bellanca— at least no more than hold the controls. "Certainlv no female has ever taken one off or landed it," she informed them. George must have instantly recognized the latent publicity opportunity inherent in this statement.

I'm guessing "Elinor" is one of Amelia's classic mis-spellings (for Eleanor Roosevelt) incorporated into the book by Mary Lovell, as she states on page 7, one of the few I was allowed to read. But I accept that once again we are talking about a future possibility, not describing an event after-the-fact.

Actually, scratch that, it seems more likely it is Elinor Smith; Amelia was friendly with both these women.

On page 143 the book describes Elinor & Amelia test-driving a large Bellanca aircraft.

Amelia's test flight in the machine appalled Elinor, for, as she recalled in her memoir, as Amelia took over the controls "our big calm bird suddenly lurched out of control and wobbled all over the sky."

"Again we slipped and skidded all over the sky. I was baffled, for the ship's flying position had been established, the rest of it should have been like flying a small biplane. Although she said nothing to Amelia, Elinor privately concluded that Amelia's flying ability was considerably less than she had been led to believe. She had been told as much by Lady Heath but hadn't believed it.

Oh wow, that puts a different slant on things. In fact, I should probably walk quietly away from this problem before I stir up any more mud. But just in case I am tempted back here, can you please elaborate on TIGHAR - I literally haven't a clue what that might mean.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Replied below.

"Firstly, allow me to stress that we are having an editorial discussion here, not an argument. I have no skin in this game except improving Wikipedia, and improving myself at the same time if that is possible. I also assume WP:GOODFAITH in respect of your good self."

I would encourage a read of Assume the assumption of good faith (an essay, not a policy, but a good one). It's not necessary to 'remind' editors of good faith unless you believe they're not acting in good faith, disclaimer notwithstanding. I provided a response to your claims. I see nothing incivil in what I wrote.

The sentence I quoted was from the article, section "First woman to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 1928", subsection "Transatlantic flight". The citations for it are at the end of the graf.

But. But! I did not review the sources there - that was a mistake. Two of the three do not verify the claim, and the third is a completely out-of-place, non-sequitur biography of Edwin Binney. Sheesh!

So, we're back to the beginning, notwithstanding the discussion that has taken place since I last visited. We have the relatively common problem here of finding reliable sources, and having the time/inclination to go down a rabbit hole. I have no 'skin in the game' either, and the topic isn't of significant interest to me. It might be worth a 'ping' to some of the relevant Wikiproject pages. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

(de-indent) Okay, checking... The Earhart quote is currently "sourced" to the TIGHAR page (re what are they: they're a group really into finding Earhart's remains and her plane and think it might be on Howland Island / Nikamaroro). But the IA comes up now and it does not contain the quote. The quote was added in 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=87619917 back before quote sourcing was enforced. So I think it just got there unintentionally. The whole section was rewritten ~9 months ago or so https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1294949606 by an inexperienced editor who hasn't edited since. There WAS a serious source in the older version but this refactor just... randomly moved stuff around to support their theory. I think we should hard revert the section before the refactor.

Long-term, we probably do still need a major rewrite based on all the sources, just it'll be a lot of work. Followed by aggressively reverting some of the well-meaning passerby edits like the above. SnowFire (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, full reverting might be a little hardcore. Ugh, there does seem to be some useful stuff, just rearranging the sources was not great. More generally, we probably need more spinoff articles, since in the context of the larger Earhart article, it's too much text spent on it. But that doesn't mean a deep-dive is a bad idea, just we'd need lots of spinoff articles for each phase of Earhart's life. SnowFire (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Yeah, the weak-to-no sourcing from days of old is one of those long-term problems, that - when you come across a long article with almost none - it takes the wind out of your sails. Like, do I really want to devote my entire afternoon to source one paragraph of a twenty paragraph article? It's exhausting doing so, I say from experience. I'm typically satisfied doing what I did today - completely refactoring two sources from an old style to new, in order to add the 'url-status=dead' string, so you don't wind up at the deadlink by clicking the expected link. And it has zero materially positive effect on the article. sigh. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It's been months. The mentions in this page of Trump's order should be updated to reflect whatever has been released and found to be notable. Anything important should be copied over to Speculation on the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan as well, which seems to not mention the guy at present.

The Japanese capture theory parts of both pages should also be improved to reflect that it didn't begin in 1966 but immediately, as noted in the 1939 letter about a specious 'message in a bottle' off the coast of France with a lock of hair as proof. It's nonsense but hardly non-notable: It's at the top of the US Archives' own page on Earhart. DNA testing would also be interesting if the hair's still around somewhere, however unlikely a match is; it's always possible the IJN picked her or her remains up from whatever island the messages went out from. — LlywelynII 22:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)