Talk:Charles Lindbergh/Archive 1

Jr. and Sr. and Naming this Article
I think that we should move this article to "Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Sr." and create an article about his son at "Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr.". WhisperToMe 17:58, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, since the two persons are linked together very much and I believe that, excluding the kidnapping of the poor boy, there is not much other interesing information about him. Pascal 18:57, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't agree either. Like Pascal said. The proper article seems to be at the appropriate name now. -- Infrogmation 20:11, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But the kidnapping itself made the son famous. There have been many books written theorizing what happened to the child. An article about the son would have to be almost all about the kidnapping, murder, and conspiracy theories people wrote about it, but I still believe that the article should splinter. Even if the father and son are related, per se, there should still be separate articles distinguishing them. WhisperToMe 03:51, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The father is always referred to as Charles Lindbergh, and the kidnap victim is always referred to "the Lindbergh baby". The son is not famous, the kidnapping of the son is famous. An article about the Lindbergh baby kidnapping or Lindbergh kidnapping gives some clue as to content: an article about Charles Lindbergh, Jr. would only be mystifying. -- Someone else 03:58, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, the article is Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., and the son WAS somewhat famous, since the newspapers called him "The Eaglet". His death made him more FAMOUS, but the people involved were even MORE Famous than he was. By the way, while "Lindbergh Baby" is a well known name for him, it is NOT a suitable name because it is not the formal, legal name given to the child. WhisperToMe 23:41, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sort of like Jimmy Carter. -- Someone else 23:52, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My case in point is an airport. New Tokyo International Airport in Narita, Japan is commonly called by westerners as "Narita Airport", but that is NOT the airport's official designation. I'll see if anyone wants to keep the article at "Jimmy Carter". WhisperToMe 00:06, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * My point is that I think it would be wrong to make two seperate pages about the father and the child, with on both pages more or less the same info about the kidnapping. Perhaps a seperate, detailled page about the 1932 Lindbergh baby kidnapping, and two entries: Charles Augustus Lindbergh and Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr.. Charles Augustus Lindbergh Sr. could redirect to Charles Augustus Lindbergh. Then in the articles about father and son, we can simply refer to the kidnapping article. I doubt if there is enough information to make a seperate (non-stub) page about the child (but that can be because I don't know very much about the subject), but if anyone wants to give it a shot, it's fine Pascal 12:40, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

breaking news
This news item should be incorporated into this article. Kingturtle 20:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * broken link -- what was this news? DHR 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Airships
Within aviation circles records are held by aircraft category and class. Airplanes are in a different category than airships. This is not only the popular opinion of people in the community, but the official position of the FIA, the world's aviation record keeping organization. As such I am reverting the airships addition. PPGMD 18:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response:

Yes, aviation records are set strictly according to aircraft class, but you seem to miss the point entirely. This aside I inserted was not meant to indicate that the Orteig prize qualifications had already been met, but merely to correct a common public misperception that Lindbergh was the first to fly the Atlantic by noting that Alcock and Brown as well as airships had flown the Atlantic non stop before him. The fact that the aircraft categories are different is irrelevant. And anyways, airships were considered real rivals to airplanes for air travel before the Hindenburg. And remember, the fact that Lindbergh flew solo was irrelevant to the Orteig prize which did not require it, it was just his strategy to fly a small light plane rather that a multiengined one. Using the qualifier "solo" serves, in laudatory articles about Lindbergh, to obscure the fact I am pointing out. Therefore, I re insert the airship reference since your objection to it is not logical. (Petrol)


 * It already had that in it, mentioning other non-stop flights across the Atlantic. I am against the airships entry specfically because it compares apples to oranges.
 * Adding a comment about airships crossing first, might be a good note on a page about the Orteig prize, and tranatlantic commerce in general, but it doesn't deserve an entry in a man's biography page. PPGMD

I'd suggest having details of flights before Lindbergh at the Transatlantic flight (which could use some expansion, I think). The Lindbergh article says he wasn't the first and links to the Transatlantic flight article; people who want to more details about earlier and other important Transatlantic flights can see that page. A thought, -- Infrogmation 06:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That would work for me. PPGMD 16:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lindbergh Boulevard
In St. Louis, Missouri, sections of U.S. Highway 67 are named Lindbergh Blvd. after the aviator Charles Lindbergh.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/05/30/people.lindbergh.reut/index.html

wow, what a development
 * that CNN link is broken. What did it say? DHR 23:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reader's Digest article
Should this be included, or does the article already cover his views on this? In November 1939, Charles Lindbergh wrote the following for the Reader's Digest: "Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on a strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German airforce, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence...we can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races." --Fluxaviator 06:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

how could this be?
How could Lindbergh have been both admired by Nazi's and be a Freemason a group banned in Germany? Life is complex. Lindbergh was as close to a Nazi as most Americans came.Ahpsp 15:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation
2 things. Given the article, why isn't Wallace cited in "Sources"? And Wallace is given too much attention; he isn't the only one who believes, or has said, Lindbergh was used by Göring. Trekphiler 13:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

USAAS or USAAC
It is said "In 1924, he started training as a with the United States Army Air Corps." but United States Army Air Corps says "It was established under this name by an act of Congress on July 2, 1926." Was it really USAAC at that time, or, was that USAAS? --203.138.22.97 01:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the Air Service in 1924. Your information about the USAAC is precisely correct. The Air Service ended July 2, 1926 with the creation of the AAC.--Buckboard 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the most biased article I've come across in Wikipedia. It seems that the knives are out for Lindy here. Maybe it's the Roth novel, or maybe the other novels that portray him as a monster that have poisoned the well, but I think history got warped here for about 2/3 of this article. Problems:
 * One tiny mention of his heroic, death-defying wartime flights in the Pacific - as a CIVILIAN?
 * Little mention of his tireless environmental crusades in later life? He lived in a hut and was buried in the dirt (no coffin) so as not to harm Mother Earth, for crying out loud. Has ANYONE read his autobiography? I have, and will be adding.
 * I have also read a biography on him from 2000 or 2001, can't recall the title. It also had a lot on his non-aviation related parts of life, including the environmentalist issues. Go ahead and add the things, and don't forget to cite sources as per Cite sources much as possible as you go. --BACbKA 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nhprman 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "..well-documented fascist involvement"? Was he sabotaging ships? Nice insinuation here.
 * A lot of revisionism here re: his assessment of Nazi air power. He had stars in his eyes about the strength of the Germans, that's true, but he also reported every plane he saw to the War Dept, and as of 1940, he was right to be worried about the lazy war prep in the US.
 * A quibble: "In Europe during the rise of fascism, Lindbergh traveled to Germany.." Germans never had "fascism," that was Italy.
 * And this: "many believe that the tragic kidnapping and death of his son Charles Augustus influenced him to foster these children in secret SO AS TO COMPENSATE FOR HIS TERRIBLE LOSS"? Present documentation of that OPINION, please. A slight rephrasing, to cut that last bit would be appropriate.
 * You're absolutely right. I'm moving the text over here until somebody cares to explicitly annotate it with a specific reference instead of the unencyclopedic rhetoric intro:
 * Indeed, many believe that the tragic kidnapping and death of his son Charles Augustus influenced him to foster these children in secret so as to compensate for his terrible loss.
 * --BACbKA 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV. It's very slanted. The man was not perfect, and was controversial even in his time, but oddly, he represented 85% of the American public in the 1930s and early 40s on eugenics, isolationism and other controversial issues. My reading of NPOV policy is we can't use biased language to judge a subject, even if we accurately describe those controversies. That's been violated here. Nhprman 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, recent edits were made to downplay his first solo non-stop flight from NYC to Paris. Thanks for the bias! I hesitate to get into an edit war, but there's a limit to the slant one article can bear. Nhprman 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, but please keep back the bitter language and stay cool if you can. I agree with you, and have put back the piece of info that the anon editor has removed in a series of their edits. --BACbKA 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try to stay cool. Nhprman 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

While I understand what the previous edits were intended to do, I think Hitler "resurrecting" Germany is wording just too close to that of the Nazi propaganda machine. However, I get what the editor was trying to say. Lindbergh did indeed think Germany's economy was highly successful, as did many Americans at the time. (Germany, driven as it was, almost solely by a huge war machine, being artificially "resurected," as was America itself by War's end, by the same means.) Other minor edits include previously mentioned anachronism of "fascism" being in Germany. I changed that subhead, but added "Nazi" and "Naziism" in a couple of places, so hopefully, folks will see that as a "wash" but not an attempt to "whitewash," as it wre. The new subhead: "pre-war activities" is sufficiently nebulous, too (though more neutral than the previous subhead) so perhaps Lindy-haters will like it as much as I do. Nhprman 14:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Lindbergh was in Germany BEFORE the war at the request of the US Military and US diplomats. He saw the German economy at strength while the USA was still in the Depression. Lindbergh attended the 1936 Olympics but did not meet Hitler at that time.GHgh 08:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The need to "get" Lindbergh
The previous revision, mentioning in the lead paragraph, "his sympathy with the Nazi German government" is sufficient to get the point across, and I've reverted to that excellent and brief intro sentence. The idea of "piling on" with personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations such as his "personal ties" with Nazi leaders, and drawing it out just to make a political point is wholly unnecessary. Nhprman 02:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure most here think it's pretty pathetic for some anon user to delete Lindbergh' "early life" section as an act of vandalism, as just happened (I restored it). The depth of hatred apparently runs deep for some sad little minds. Nhprman 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert discussion
Okay folks, I think someone's playing a very clever game here. I'm not playing along.
 * 1) Without discussion on the Talk page, someone (not signed in) is deleting the "early life" section of the article repeatedly
 * 2) Apparently, since I did reverts twice now, they think I will revert three times in a day to see if I will violate the three-revert rule, of which I am well aware. I will not.
 * 3) Will someone who knows how to do so please revert to the previous edit, so Mr. Lindbergh's article can have an early life?
 * 4) And yes, I will report this as vandalism if it doesn't end (and if no one reverts it), since there is no active debate over deleting this article's "early life" section, it is NOT a NPOV issue, and not a Bold edit. Nhprman 06:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been more than 24 hours since my first revert so I'm adding "early life" back in. The title of this article isn't "Lindbergh Controversies," is about his LIFE. If this disappears again, I will report the serial vandal. Nhprman 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing info
"Even after the Final Solution was exposed, Lindbergh refused to admit he had been wrong about the Nazis or about his eugenic beliefs."

Lines like this are strictly opinion and doesn't belong here. How did the final solution being exposed somehow "disprove" eugenics?

A History Channel documentary about him said he was a member of the American Eugenics Society even after World War 2. This article doesn't have that in it.

Hugh Wilson link...
I apologize if this isn't the appropriate place to point this out, but the hyperlink for "Hugh Wilson" goes to the Wikipedia article on movie director Hugh Wison, not Ambassador Hugh Wilson.

Lindbergh and the Nazis
I don't know if this is the right place to talk about this, but I have a question. My history teacher said in class that Hitler personaly recruited Lindbergh as a "spy" and promted him to speak against American intervention in the war. I know that Lindergh did vist Germany and Europe and spoke against going to war, but calling him a personal spy of Hitler sounded a litte extreame. Any info on this would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.133.125 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your history teacher is wrong, and should keep that that sort of nonsense to themselves. Read Berg's excellent book "Lindbergh." MWShort (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is worded in a POV manner. This sort of special pleading doesn't really convince anyone but the already converted, so why bother "preaching to the choir?" Why not just spell out the facts and let the chips fall where they may?

Adam Holland 01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's much like some other user (whom I won't name here) did to the Alexis Carrel article, by adding hundreds of words (tripling the existing text in just three days!) and nearly a dozen obscure Arab "sources" to imply Carrel was only a pro-death Nazi and a fomenter of modern Muslim extremism, when he was nothing of the sort. It's very painful to watch people slandered when one doesn't want to get into a 'revert war' with them over it. I say "Be Bold!" Cut out the bias. Nhprman UserLists  02:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"The American Axis, written by Holocaust researcher and investigative journalist Max Wallace, takes a harsh view of Lindbergh's pre-war actions, essentially agreeing with FDR's assesment that Lindbergh was pro-Nazi. This book is considered controversial and of poor scholarship."

-- Considered so by whom? Where's the specifics/ evidence? Very weasly language.

--I removed that last sentence condemning Wallace's book until a reputable source can be provided for dismissing it. History is clear that Lindbergh 1) accepted a medal from the Nazis, 2) refused to return it for a specious reason (it's specious during a time of war to claim that insulting a govt is beyond the pale, and 3) was regarded by the American govt and the Commander-in-Chief to be an unacceptable security risk. Dismissing Wallace's claims, which are consistent with these facts, takes more than an unsourced opinion. I don't really want to get into a huge back and forth about Lindbergh, who I do think meant America Next when he said American First, but a minimum standard should be maintained even for people who want to defend one of their heroes.Ahpsp 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I decided to delete any reference to Wallace because simply mentioning him without qualification can be just as POV. And for the record, we were not yet at war when the medal controversy took place, and I hardly think we should take seriously what FDR called a security risk, considering among countless ludicrous others the entire Japanese population to be such, and all the while him having hundreds of Soviet spies in the government under his watch, including very likely his own chief-of-staff Harry Hopkins.--Jacrosse 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody reverted back to the inclusion of the Wallace info, which is as it should be. Mentioning him is not POV, he wrote a book on Lindbergh, it's sourced information.  If you want to exclude Wallace then Berg should be excluded as well.  The attempt to exclude condemnatory information about CL should also lead to excluding exculpatory information.  Leaving one and excluding the other is the true POV.--Ahpsp 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does this section now have a header suggesting that it's neutrality is in dispute? There really is no dispute. There are two different sides presented, one which would like to suggest that Lindy was innocent of bad intentions when he uttered his isolationist and anti-Semitic statements (which cites Berg), and one which cites Wallace to suggest that he was culpable of sympathy with the Nazis. There are citations for both views, and no POV in the article which is not cited. It doesn't make any sense to call this a lack of neutrality. Unless the lack of neutrality is simply the suggestion, confirmed everywhere in the historical record, that Lindbergh's behavior prior to WW2 needs some sort of explanation.--Ahpsp 15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading the section on NPOV, where I came across this protocol for handling disputes--"Then, on the article's talk page, make a new sectioned titled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." I'm going to remove the header soon unless the person who wants to iniate this as a dispute explains themselves on this page.

Wallace book
I removed the unsourced assertion that the Wallace book was mostly negatively reviewed. I've read both negative and positive reviews. I don't understand the cowardice of the people who claim that Lindbergh did not have Nazi sympathies. Just state the facts and let people make their own decisions. An inability to do that rather argues that Lindbergh and his views need special protection on consideration, not something consistent with the assertion that he was innocent of wrongdoing.Ahpsp 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronology; Is this possible?
"He went on to assist with the war effort by serving as a civilian consultant to aviation companies and the government, as well as flying about 50 combat missions (again as a civilian) in 1944 in the Pacific War. His contributions include engine-leaning techniques that Lindbergh showed P-38 Lightning pilots. This improved fuel usage while cruising, enabling aircraft to fly longer-range missions such as the one that killed Admiral Yamamoto."

I have heard this before, I think on the History Channel, and it is a great story. However, the mission that killed Admiral Yamamoto occurred in April, 1943. Lindbergh was not in the Pacific Theatre until a year later, and did not fly P-38s until June, 1944. See, Berg, Lindbergh (Putnam, 1998), p. 450. Is there an explanation for this seeming chronologic contradiction?
 * Appears to be a misunderstanding. It could be due to the adjacency of http://p-38online.com/lindy.html and http://p-38online.com/yam.html -- a search for lindbergh yamamoto popped both up. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Why is the cover of the New York Times in this article twice? --Berserk798 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Lindbergh in the Second World War
I have seen nothing on Lindbergh's activities in the Second World War. One source stipulates that he was attached to the 475th Squadron in the South Pacific as an observer. There he discovered a way to extend the range of the P38 Lightening from 900 to 1,800 miles by modifying flight procedure, namely reducing the revving of the engine. The extended range made the P38 a more devastating aircraft and led to its use in long range operations like the assassination of Admiral Yamamoto and the bombing of oil fields in the Dutch East Indies.
 * Well, that source is probably a mirror of this article. The information is still here. It doesn't make any sense, though; see the discussion above: Lindbergh arrived in the South Pacific in 1944, and Yamamoto was killed in 1943. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Double Life
Speculations about Mr. Lindbergh's double life have reappeared in a recently published book. Details pertaining to this matter should unquestionably be included in his article.  Jendeyoung 23:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed Falphin 02:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are some rumors that Lindbergh led a double life and had a wife and three children in Germany (which is claimed by one of the three), but since I can't find comfirmation, I have not added it to the article.

Information about Lindbergh's alleged affair with a German woman has been included in this article, despite the original author's decision (listed at top of this page) not to include it. In fact, I think that was a wise decision because, as far as I know, there has been no real confirmation of the affair apart from the supposed daughter's display of letters between her mother and Lindbergh. I was going to change the wording of the affair in the article to "alleged," but it's a bit tough to do when the sentence following it talks about the "three children they had together" (paraphrase)! (Putting "alleged" in twice just makes it too awkward). I don't care one way or the other if Lindbergh did have the affair, but it seems to me that until it's been confirmed with DNA or something equally conclusive, that the information on the affair should either be removed or reworked to make it clear it's only an allegation. If someone wants to give such reworking a shot, go for it. Moncrief 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The material is now included in "later life". We should handle it better. Right now, under "marriage and children" we have:
 * According to a Biography Channel profile on Lindbergh, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, the daughter of diplomat Dwight Morrow, was the only woman he had ever asked out on a date.
 * To say he only dated one woman, then to later list three major affairs, appears inconsistent. -Will Beback 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The infobox lists Brigitte's sister Marietta Hesshaimer as the mother of two of Lindbergh's children but the text does not mention her at all. Muad (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Information and reference relating to Marietta Hesshaimer has been added to text of the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Introduction
I removed the sentence "But none can doubt the irony of an isolationist movement led by the man who, more than any other, proved that the great ocean between Europe and the United States was no longer a great buffer between the two continents." It is a rather nice turn of phrase, but it is also POV, lecturing about irony and making a proclamation about who is allowed to disagree with the assesment. That really isn't appropriate. -- Infrogmation 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nazi Sympathies"
This headline is way too POV, even defamatory. Berg is probably the most balanced and politically nuetral, not to mention acclaimed, author to have written about Lindbergh and would disagree. That's not even to mention Cole, Buchanan, and other more partial authors who are really no less credible or more biased than someone like Wallace who is hostile to Lindbergh and partial to FDR. Also, "racist" suggests ill intent toward race as opposed to simply believing in the concept of race and being concerned about the fate of one's own. Lindbergh's next scheduled speech as well as his view of American brutality against the Japanese expressed in his Wartime Journals suggests his ideas would be more accurately described as "racialist." NewShield May 19 2006
 * He's generally described as "racist", not "racialist", so that's what Wikipedia calls him; feel free to add verifiable material from reliable sources that make the racist/racialist distinction. He had Nazi sympathies. This isn't to say he embraced the most heinous parts of their program (other than eugenics, but he was hardly unusual in that), but he had Nazi sympathies. It's hard to describe it any other way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to document the claim that he is "generally described" as racist or we can remove the entire reference to racism, racialism or xenophobia. The sentence in question describes his views in the context of American views of the time, and it is "generally" recognized that racism, racialism and xenophobia alike were commonplace in that era. Otherwise, his speech at Des Moines well documents his views about Jewish people and his reasoning for opposing intervention. Unless Mr. Gordon can provide a citation to the synthesis that "generally describes" him as racist when he states "I am not attacking the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire", then we need to stop offering original synthesis as generalized knowledge. There is controversy surrounding his alleged sympathies. "No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany," Charles Lindbergh said at Des Moines. That he was characterized as a racist by political foes does not make him a racist. To qualify as "Racist" he needs to be described as such in scholarly literature. Also, there is no reason to delink the word "xenophobia" and there is no documentation that "his" xenophobia was particularly virulent.


 * Also, JPGordon speaks for JPGordon -- his assertion that "That's what Wikipedia calls him" implies authority not assigned to him as an editor. Wikipedia calls him whatever evidence suggest he was called by reputable published sources. Lindbergh's own words archived by PBS comprise a reputable published source. The New York Times describes him as a racialist: "He made a national radio address tinged with racialist views " The New York Times is a reputable published source. The NYT documents the controversy surrounding his alleged Nazi views. "Sounding like a Nazi, even as he disclaimed the label..." Apreca 06:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't give JPGordon absolute authority, but we don't give it to the NYT either. Et cetera. There are more than sufficient sources that call Lindbergh a "racist" for us to usethe same term. -Will Beback 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * After all, it was named for Lindy the hero, not Lindy the racist.
 * In order to maintain their dominance over other races, Lindbergh believed that whites should join together to fend off the teeming legions of non-whites who were the real long-term threat.
 * The question to ask about Lindbergh is not whether he was a crackpot and a racist. The above screed, and his infamous speech in Des Moines ("The greatest danger to this country lies in the large Jewish influence") make the exercise superfluous. 
 *  The point to make about the problematic role of the two flawed heroes concerns the impact of their anti-Semitic, racist, pro-Nazi public activities, speeches or publications over the course of more than a decade on American public opinion.... Between title and conclusion lies the substance of the book: characterized by the absence of an explicitly stated argument, a detailed, yet narrowly focused narrative suggests that their racist convictions led Ford and Lindbergh to take a benevolent and admiring view of the Third Reich, and partly knowingly, partly unwittingly served Nazi interests.
 * ... Anne emerges insteada woman of wealth and leisure, an arrogant, deeply self-centered woman, racist and anti-Semitic (like her husband)...
 * Lindbergh isn't accepted as an American hero for crossing the Atlantic - he is portrayed as a racist and Fascist.
 * This same issue also details several anti-unionists, including Charles Lindbergh, who is regarded by the Teamsters as an anti-Semitic, racist and isolationist.

We don't give JPGordon absolute authority, but we don't give it to the NYT either.
 * After all, it was named for Lindy the hero, not Lindy the racist.

This was before WW2
 * In order to maintain their dominance over other races, Lindbergh believed that whites should join together to fend off the teeming legions of non-whites who were the real long-term threat.

That is wrong how? How is that not an opinion? Do you think letting over immigration from the third world is a good thing? Do you think that having public schools being taught in spanish and whole cities and communities being spanish speeking only is good? Do you like having millions upon millions of people not assimilate? Do you think that protestors saying they are going to take over America and taking over state legislatures is not a threat to traditional American hegemony? Maybe you missed this from the commie media:

In a June 13, 2004, interview with Al-Majd television, Al-'Omar said "America is collapsing from within."

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe," Gadhafi said. "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

This is no different from what Lindbergh was saying yet only lindbergh is the racist one. I agree with him 100 percent and you dont. Many people have opinions so you cant say he was racist based on this.


 * The question to ask about Lindbergh is not whether he was a crackpot and a racist. The above screed, and his infamous speech in Des Moines ("The greatest danger to this country lies in the large Jewish influence") make the exercise superfluous. 

The Jews do own the media and have much influence over it. This is dangerous and I dont disagree one bit. It's not because they are Jewish but because they happen to have a contrary interest to the United States constitution. (Communism) Again would I go and say that the media is pushing communism on people? No. For the most part this is my personal opinion. What I can do however is try to show people why I believe the media pushes communism in the body of the article. But if I were to do what you do I would just go ahead and say that the media is pushing communism because its public opinion of the right wing. Just because something is public opinion it doesnt make it write and this has been written by Jimmy Wales in the NPOV policy. Perhaps you should read it.


 *  The point to make about the problematic role of the two flawed heroes concerns the impact of their anti-Semitic, racist, pro-Nazi public activities, speeches or publications over the course of more than a decade on American public opinion.... Between title and conclusion lies the substance of the book: characterized by the absence of an explicitly stated argument, a detailed, yet narrowly focused narrative suggests that their racist convictions led Ford and Lindbergh to take a benevolent and admiring view of the Third Reich, and partly knowingly, partly unwittingly served Nazi interests.

Who the hell are you to judge two people you never even knew 60 years later when the history books have been written? Who made you God?


 * ... Anne emerges insteada woman of wealth and leisure, an arrogant, deeply self-centered woman, racist and anti-Semitic (like her husband)...

Again if you want to add that in the Anne article feel free. Just make a proper citation and deliver it correctly as a viewpoint and not a fact. Say "This book says that Anne was racist, arrogant, self centered etc and this is why..."

DO NOT SAY:

Anne Lindbergh was racist, self centered, arrogant etc. If you do not understand this you should be kicked off wikipedia.


 * Lindbergh isn't accepted as an American hero for crossing the Atlantic - he is portrayed as a racist and Fascist.

He is portrayed as a racist and a fascist.


 * This same issue also details several anti-unionists, including Charles Lindbergh, who is regarded by the Teamsters as an anti-Semitic, racist and isolationist.

Who was regarded. These are all opinions. You need to learn to think for yourself. People like you are sheep you just listen to what everything the SPLC or the mainstream media tell you. Its also interesting to note that even the same biographer Berg said that Lindbergh had a surprising view of blacks for the time and was courteous to everyone. Racist is an opinion and you have to let the reader make up their own mind by only presenting information. How can you prove that he "hated" people with a different skin color. You seem to not have any clue about what racist means. If you want to post Lindbergh wth Goerhing feel free to do it. Do whatever it takes to convince people that he was a racist by posting factual information I dont care. Just dont tell them he was racist. The best solution to this is problem is:

You people think he was racist We dont think he was racist

The best solution is not to have the word racist written and for you to feel free to add other information that indicates that he was. We wont stop you. Go ahead and add that Goehring picture.

Jerry Jones 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't edit or delete my comments. -Will Beback 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to add a citation that he considered Hitler a fanatic, because it's already in the link that explains that he believed that whites are usually intellectually superior to blacks but blacks generally have superior sensate abilities. This also sheds some light on why has planned to make that never-delivered speech interrupted by Pearl Harbor, and I don't think "racist" is the best word to describes these views especially for someone in those days. As for the Christopher Hitchens article, he is an avowed Communist sympathizer and Buchanan critic who disliked Reagan but supports the neoconservatives! Obviously he wouldn't like Lindbergh, although in accusing anyone of being a "crackpot" I'd say he shouldn't cast the first stone. Anyway, someone who contends that blacks have superior mental abilities to whites in someways and writes a speech advocating their rights shouldn't be described as "racist." Believing that their are fundemental differences between races is not racist per se.NewShield 21:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It makes no more sense to omit that he was a racist then to omit that he was an aviator. I suppose we could just provide the information about his flights and let the reader decide whther he was a pilot or not. But doing so would make for an incomplete article. -Will Beback 21:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We need to avoid the "No true Scotsman" error. We can't say that the subject isn't an "X" because "X"s never do "Y". Instead of making such logical (or illogical) deductions, at Wikipedia we verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If there are sources who dispute that Lindbergh was a racist then we should include those too. -Will Beback 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Him being an avator is a fact. It can not be argued. Him being a racist can be argued and is an opinion. Racist definitely doesnt belong in the artcile considering its an opinion. I do not think he was racist but he just saw racial differences. That does not make someone racist. How can you substantiate that he "hated" people just because of their skin color? I agree with NewShield. You seem to connect anything related to race as being racist. You need to review the definition of racist. Plus NewShield can you provide the link where he thought Hitler was a fanatic? Jerry Jones 22:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Who disputes that he is a racist? Let's add their viewpoint too. -Will Beback 22:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The link after where it says he had a surprisingly positive opinion of blacks for the time that explains why also says he thought Hitler was a fanatic. A. Scott Berg's book and the Wartime Journals both document that he felt this way as early as 1938NewShield 00:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of explaining information I already provided a link to, but whoever did it did not even write something that made sense. I corrected it and the link is still where it was. NewShield 01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To review these sources: it is Berg, the biographer who other editors appear to want to banish from the article, who says that Lindbergh viewed Hitler as a "fanatic"? It certainly isn't contained in the "Des Moines" speech cited at the end of the sentence. What are our sources for this line?
 * a surprisingly positive attitude toward blacks for the time [2] (something that was scheduled to be fully revealed in an undelivered speech interrupted by Pearl Harbor [3]) were quite inconsistent with the racial and political beliefs of Hitler's Nazis.
 * Citations 2 and 3 make no such claim, and I cannot find any mention of blacks or civil rights in the Dec 12 speech, citation 3. -Will Beback 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You must not be looking hard enough because the claim is in page 18 of citation two and civil rights are mentioned in page 4 of citationion three as well as the Wartime Journals. As far as eliminating Berg, his book is generally considered the definitive one on Lindbergh although not perfect in my opinion. It is the most complete and the most politically neutral book about his life. Someone complained about an assertion falsely attributed to Berg, so I corrected it.NewShield 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

acerb's comments re: he was a racist
I'm sorting through these sources as well, but we do weight sources according to their reputability and topical expertise. Simply showing that several people on the Internet said "he was a racist" doesn't support a conclusion that he was a racist. We can discuss his views of race, as represented in reliable sources, without generalizing conclusions that aren't generalized in our sources. I'm not here to "banish" any source from the article, but I am aware that this encyclopedia promises readers content will not represent original synthesis by volunteer editors, but instead represents synthesis cited in properly weighted sources. A personal essay of a dance instructor (linked below) should not receive nearly the weight of the largest and most reputable newspaper in Lindbergh's native land.


 * "We don't give JPGordon absolute authority, but we don't give it to the NYT either."
 * "After all, it was named for Lindy the hero, not Lindy the racist."

Kevin MacDonald never uses the term "Racist" or "Xenophobe" in reference to Lindbergh available at the cited link It would be originial synthesis to presume his analysis of Lindbergh can be characterized in those terms when he did not use those terms.

Sources cited in a university student newspaper might be considered reliable, but none of the sources cited in the Bruin use the term racist or xenophope. That is the synthesis of the Daily Bruin staff writer. We can weight the quality of journalism at the NYT above the quality of journalism of the university student paper. Given a choice of the terminology synthesized by the NYT or the Daily Bruin, we would still defer to the language of the Times. 

A political opinion essay rebutting Pat Buchanan's book in a politically slanted online publication would not receive the same weight as a NYT book review. 

A citation to a dead link needs to be directed to a verifiable source before it can have weight at all. 

A citation characterizing the views of his wife does not inform a statement about how Lindbergh's views are "generally regarded"

The views of Linbergh's wife about race , the personal essay of a dance instructor, a political essay, and the conclusion of college newspaper staff writer are not sufficient to establish that Lindbergh was "generally regarded" as a racist especially in the face of a citation from a publication with distribution more than all the other sources combined which uses the term "racialist." There is no citation to support the synthesized conclusion that he was a "virulant xenophobe." Because we had this content in without support, we need to step back and ask what motivated such deviation from publication guidelines, and ask how those motivations might influence arguments in defense of the substandard content.

Contrary to WillBeBack's claim that "There are more than sufficient sources that call Lindbergh a "racist" for us to usethe same term." there are not sufficient sources to say he was "generally regarded" as a racist. He was regarded by the New York Times as a "racialist." Any generalization would be hasty if it does not characterize who generalized the information. We can say the Teamsters of his time regarded him as a racist, because we have reliable citation to that effect in their Oct. 3, 1941 issue of "The Washington Teamster." Apreca 05:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Scott Berg biographer
This part is ridiculous. Anyone who has studied lindbergh knows damn well that he believed in everything that he said word for word. This biographer is portrayng him like a dumbass who didn't know what he was talking about and was easily manipulated and couldn't think for himself. This needs to be removed or the NPOV sign needs to stay up permanently.

Jerry Jones 19:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I agree except for the fact that Berg protrays him that way. Many biographers portray him that way, but he doesn't. He portrays Lindbergh as exceedingy stubborn in his convictions and not politically saavy, but he definitely believed everything he said and was not stupid. NewShield 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Buchanan not relevant here
Please note that referencing Pat Buchanan's views on isolationism are irrelevant to an article on someone who pre-dates him. Unless you can cite an article of Buchanan defending Lindbergh's pre-war positions, NAMING Lindbergh, this has no place in the article, and seems like an attempt to tie him to another controversial figure from our own times. That's POV-pushing. - Nhprman 03:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany
Dear Friends, for me Nazi Germany is a derogatory propaganda term used in WW2 that have no backup in reality. to be precise, the country is Germany, and it can be said, if you need “Germany under the Nazi regime.” or equivalent.

In fact also exists an article called  “Nazi Germany” I suggest to change to Germany under the Nazi regime.


 * "Nazi Germany" is a common phrase to indicate the regime and nation. Can you offer any sources that call it a POV or derogatory term? -Will Beback 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You could just say the "Third Reich," or Grossdeutsches(sp?) Reich if you're going to be picky. --Hexiva 21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

81 or 64?
The Alcock and Brown article says 81 flew the Atlantic before him; this article says 64.Pliny 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply put..
The man was a complete fake. A maniacal, propaganda-induced disgrace to the United States who would force his 7-month pregnant wife on unnecessary flights across the country.

Bruno Richard Hauptman was innocent, 100%. Lindbergh killed his own son. Unfortunately in light of his "pop culture" status, nobody would've even thought that could be remotely possible.

Lindbergh killed his own son, know the facts!

^^^^ This person did not even have the guts to post his name. This is a theory, by the way, put forward by a crackpot book called "Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax." Because of his controversial political positions, Lindbergh has fallen victim to left-wing muckrakers, some of whom launch disgraceful personal as well as political attacks that are unsubstantiated by any real evidence. The cowardly individual above also vandalized this page, deleting much of the middle of it. Shield2 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. And I thought the George Reeves vandal was a lunatic! Hauptmann had the ransom money stashed in his garage, and one of his floorboards was used to make the ladder. Probably just a coincidence. Wahkeenah 00:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

For a thorough debunking of all the nonsense, go to this site I found: http://members.aol.com/LindyTruth/ Shield2 03:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, someone needs to restore or rewrite the stuff that was deleted and ban the vandal. This isn't even the first time this page has been vandalized. Lindbergh was a great man whose impact on both aviation and (far more controversially) foreign policy were influencial on what's known as a macro-historical scale, but he was eccentric, flawed, and divisive. All those things will attract plenty of petty hatred.Shield2 05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What's funny to me about this ridiculous theory, perhaps the dumbest Lindbergh kidnapping theory of all, is how obviously illogical and Communist-Trotskyite it is. Obviously not every likes the fact that he kept Hitler advancing into bloody showdown with Uncle Joe, least of all the ACLU. Shield2 01:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I just ask you if you have some kind of bee in your bonnet over this article? You keep using the phrase 'Communist-Trotskyite'. You also seem to have more respect for Lindbergh than I feel might be warranted. How did he keep old Schickelgruber involved in the East? Darkmind1970 08:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article and...
Hey everyone, this is a pretty good article. I went through and cut down some extra wordiness, also fixing up the section towards the end of the Lindbergh and Nazi Germany section where it seemed to get a little bogged down. One suggestion though, perhaps someone with time on their hands would like to turn the external links into endnote references; in my opinion it helps keep the article from looking cluttered.--72.92.2.16 00:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and did this, since I was thinking the same thing and there didn't seem to have been any objections. I do think it's more readable.  I preserved a couple of external links as-is because they made sense in context but the ones that were purely numbered references, I footnotified. ~ Bsktcase 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism
Will it never end? Someone needs to ban everyone who is known to have vandalized this page.Shield2 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles August Lindbergh was the father of the aviator. Charles Augustus Lindbergh was the aviator. He was not a junior. Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. was the son of the aviator. He died as a child in the kidnapping case.

The trials location is incorrect
Im from Flemington, NJ, and our towns claim to fame is that the lindbergh trial was held here. The trial itself is mentioned, but the location of the trial is not Canada.

Sorry
My thanks to Antandrus and Bzuk for reverting the massive deletion by vandals. sorry about that random picture i put in before you reverted it.--Peace237 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor
Lindberg is categorized as having received the Air Force Medal of Honor. However, the Air Force did not exist at the time he was awarded his medal, and the design is clearly that of the Army. Rklawton 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Writing style
The writing style in at least one section (antisemitism) is particularly poor. I suggest that it be reviewed and cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MalakronikMausi (talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Speculation about Hitler speech
The part that compares Lindbergh's speech to Hitler's is one contributor's opinion. Lindbergh denied the speech was anti-Semitic, and there is no particular reason to believe he was threatening the Jews rather than warning them. Addressing the Jews as a worldwide entity and recommending that they stop being "war agitators" may not be the most culturally sensitive thing to do, but it does not amount to threatening genocide. In the same speech, he expresses he disgust with the Nazis' persecution of the Jews, though the wording of that part is not exactly that of a Mr. Sensitive either. Furthermore, I do not see a sriking resemblance between Lindbergh's wording and Hitler's. I'm removing this.Shield2 03:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Most Vandalized Article Ever?
If there is any article that should be blocked from editing, it is this one. In simply trying to track down when and where the "Congressional Medal of Honor" hoax began, I've run across other silly additions (and some deletions, such as the time the entire text was replaced by "0"). Jpu1000 was one of several people to edit on 19 April 2007. Surprisingly his/her vandalism stayed up as the editing continued. For the record, Charles Lindbergh was never awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, which is bestowed upon persons for heroism in connection with military service. Perhaps it sounded as if it might be true, which may be why this nonsense stayed up for nearly four months. I'm editing the text, but I expect that there will be more idiocy added in this fun-to-edit article. Mandsford 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. It was one of the very few instances in which the Medal was awarded for something other than bravery in combat. Also, he was a reserve Captain in the Army Air Corps at the time. Look it up in any biography of Lindbergh.Shield2 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of competition for this honor -- not the Congression Medal of Honor, but the Most Vandalized Article. Llajwa 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'am sorry if I vandalized the article it was not my intention. I put in that he got the "Congressional Medal of Honor" because he actually got it. Secondly I am sorry that you didn't have the time to actually read the citation later below, which should have convinced even ignorant people. So Mandsford what about reading your homework next time before before accusing other people of vandalizem?--79.138.254.96 jpu1000 10:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bellamy Salute
This is the WIlipedia definition "The Bellamy salute is the hand gesture described by Francis Bellamy to accompany his Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". " The "flag salute" is not the same as the "military salute", as I far as I can tell. Military salute implies that our troops saluted each other with this raised hand salute. As far as I know this is not so. And this is what the current text states. Does anyone have a different view? Steve Pastor 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is from admittedly only a cursory appraisal of sources: "It was also the historical civilian salute of the United States, from 1787-1934, known since 1892 as the Bellamy Salute. It was also the historical salute among armies of the Middle East and South America." and "As the nation's leading authority on the pledge of allegiance, RexCurry.net made the historic discovery that the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) originated from the military salute in the USA, and from the original flag pledge (as written by a socialist), and not from ancient Rome." rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html FWIW Bzuk 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC).


 * (I stripped the rexcurry.net link. It's on a spam blacklist. --Jorunn 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

I should add "the standard flag salute" instead of "the standard salute," since some might confuse the latter with a military salute.Shield2 05:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Russians and "Nordics"
I changed "he preferred 'Nordics'" to "'Nordic' cultures" to correct the implication that Russians are not racially Nordic, because the descent of Russian people is a matter of controversy. They are most likely part Slavic and part Northern European, and sources claiming otherwise are often shaped by the propaganda of anti-Russian pan-German writers or anti-German "Eurasianist" Russian writers. Lindbergh himself liked Russians personally and hoped either war or containment would help them throw off the "semi-Asiatic" Soviet yoke.Shield2 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it back to Nordics. It is irrelevant. It may be propaganda and incorrect but Lindbergh based his opinion on the belief they were/are not Nordic.

Do you have a source saying Russians are part Northern European? I am interested to read it. If you have any source saying Lindbergh liked Russians feel free to add it.

GordonUS (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so "clearly stated"
The entry includes this: "However, he clearly stated elsewhere that he believed the survival of the white race was more important than the survival of democracy in Europe: 'Our bond with Europe is one of race and not of political ideology,' he declared." Is that quote the clear statement that the survival of the white race was more important than the survival of democracy? If so I don't think it makes the grade. If he clearly said that about the "white race," then why isn't the accompanying quote to that effect? I don't know if Lindbergh felt that about the "white race," but I do know that the term "race" was used much more broadly then than now. The Irish were widely considered a race, as were the Jews. Its use was closer to how we now use the term "ethnicity." Nicmart (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

At different times, he used the word race in the sense you mention and the sense we think of today. More often in the ethnic sense you mention, but it was difficult for his critics to tell the difference.Shield2 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when...
is Lindbergh a "living person"? Someone put a box at the top of this edit page stating that this was a BLP. I'm removing it. 74.132.62.250 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign)

Charles Lindbergh is a very handsome man who is dead and had many wives. He had 11 children. His wives we from different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.83.92 (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Article About Flight?
Should there maybe be a separate article that goes into more detail about the flight itself? With his experiences en route, his fuel difficulties, his problems finding the airport et al.? 162.27.9.20 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Deletions
Someone who refuses to identify him/herself keeps removing the word "anti-Semitic" from:

"Lindbergh was ultimately critical of Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews. He said in his Des Moines speech that 'No person with a sense of dignity of mankind can condone' such treatment. In the same speech, however, he engaged in the common anti-Semitic claim with regards to America's Jews that 'Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.'"

This passage is not identifying Lindbergh, the man himself, as an anti-Semite, which might well be a subjective opinion. But Lindbergh's claim that the Jews' "greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government" is a classically anti-Semitic belief. First of all, the assertion contains falsehoods, as Jews at the time, back in the 1930s, were not in any conceivable sense in control of the American government, although it is true that many Jewish people at the time were involved in the movie industry and the press. Secondly, it is a paranoid statement, as it suggests that merely by being involved in various industries and in the government the Jewish people represented a "threat to this country." No one would bat an eye at calling such a statement an example of bigotry if it were made about any other group---the Irish, Catholics, blacks, Italians, etc. The allegation that Jews, because of their control and influence over important institutions, represent a threat to our country (or to the world) is probably the single most famously and stereotypically anti-Semitic attitude in existence. If this kind of statement isn't anti-Semitic, then the term has no meaning at all. Technetium25 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See edit that I have made to this section which includes a link to a September 22, 1941, story in TIME Magazine regarding the Des Moines speech. I believe that this cures the issue. !Centpacrr (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Your edit is good. I am especially glad that you pulled up that contemporary article in Time. A key passage in that article, at the end, directly addresses the falsehood (and hence the fundamentally anti-Semitic nature) behind the claim that American Jews had undue influence or control of the press:


 * "'As far as the press is concerned, this charge is easily disproved. The two big newspaper-chain owners are William Randolph Hearst and Roy Wilson Howard, gentiles both. Biggest newspaper in New York is rabid Isolationist Joseph M. Patterson's Daily News. Biggest newspaper outside of New York is the Chicago Tribune, owned by Colonel Robert R. McCormick. In New York City itself, where nearly one third of all U.S. Jews live, the three morning papers are controlled by gentiles; one by Jews (the New York Times, world-famed for impartiality); and four evening papers are controlled by gentiles; one by Jews (the New York Post). In the U.S. as a whole, Jews probably control less than their theoretically proportionate share (4%) of the daily press. In the vast field of magazines, they have practically no control or ownership outside of Esquire-Coronet, Inc.'"


 * Technetium25 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We are discussing the late '30s and early '40s. Is your 4% figure from that time? Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The figure "4%" is a direct quote from the 1941 TIME article. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

"Franking"
The special mail carried between Santo Domingo, Port-au-Prince, and Havana was postally franked. The wikilink you found appears to refer to free franking and other franking not accomplished with postage stamps.

franked, frank·ing, franks To put an official mark on (a piece of mail) so that it can be sent free of charge.

To send (mail) free of charge.

To place a stamp or mark on (a piece of mail) to show the payment of postage.

(Centpacrr (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

"Date Inconsistencies"
I don't understand your point here. A format for multiple dates of " (20 and February 21, 1928) " makes no sense to me. It should be either (February 20-21, 1928), (February 20 & 21), or (February 20 and 21). Please explain. Thanks (Centpacrr (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC))


 * See: . Generally speaking, the WP:Aviation Project group recommends dates written out as 20 April 2008 or 20–21 April 2008. Note no use of commas or "&."


 * Thanks for the note about franking. Is franking the marking of mail by a company or government that offers free or low cost postage privileges, or the convenience of sending bulk mail without using normal postage stamps? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Re Dates: While Lindbergh was certainly famous as an aviator, this is not really exclusively an "Aviation" article but the biography of a complicated public figure who was also involved in many other areas such as politics, exploring, inventions, and other fields. I have used the format 20 April 1928, throughout which automatically inserts a comma after the day and the year. This confroms with the format used throughout the rest of the article most of which was written by others and that I have not worked on.


 * Re Franking: Franking refers to any written or printed mark, or affixed postage stamp, to indicate that the item may be processed and delivered by the Post Office. This includes "free" franking such as the handwritten or printed facsimile signature of a Member of Congress, a written "free" such as for soldiers in war zones when authorized, or US Government or USPS "Official Business" "penalty" covers. "Postal" franking (or postally franked) means that there is an indication that actual postage has been paid.  This includes affixed adhesive postage stamps, a "Postage Paid" Permit marking (such as on return business mail), PB meter postage, etc. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC))


 * One of the issues that I have tried to address is that inconsistencies in writing/editing style tend to crop up when formatting an article. In date conventions, there is a tendency to use two or three formats concurrently which has been pointed out as a matter of style choices. When using the ISO format of 2008-04-12, foreign users had indicated that it was not a familiar format and a confusion was left, was it April 12, 2008 or December 4, 2008? In WP:Aviation Project Group, a decision to use the "formal" convention of d-m-y, as opposed to the "familiar" m-d-y style, "standardized the style usage.


 * Another consideration is that editors and readers can also set the date preferences to the style they would like, however, the vast majority of Wikipedia users are "guests" or irregular users who will not have this preference set. The use of a common or consistent format is the simplest manner of dealing with the use of different date styles. If you check the style established in the article, new edits are usually conformed to match existing styles.


 * Commas are also a bit complicated as Wiki usually eliminates the comma between the month and day in the date line when written in formal style: e.g. "20 April 2008," although in familiar style, it is still correct to write: "April 20, 2008." When you get a phrase such as "in April 20, 2008," the use of double commas is discouraged in most style guides. The use of a comma in a list, the so-called "Harvard comma" which adds a comma before an "and" is also now less common. In this example, "such as politics, exploring, inventions, and other fields" would be written as "such as politics, exploring, inventions and other fields." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for directing me to the Wiki Manual of Style re: date formatting which i have read carefully and come up with the following as a solution to the question of American vs International date formatting in the Lindbergh article:


 * As this is on the en.wikipedia site, is primarily a biographical (as opposed to an "aviation") article about a controversial, multi-faceted historic American (as opposed to a Commonwealth or European) figure for which his association with aviation was important, but nonetheless represented only a part of his activities and fame, and contains within it many direct quotations and citations from US articles all of which use the "American" formatting of dates, I have reverted all the date citations back to the American format as specified in the Manual of Style so that they will display consistently throughout. (As you pointed out, the majority of these dates are also "bracketed" so that they can be displayed in several other formats for registered users who are logged in and have a different "autoformat" selected in preferences.) I have also removed bracket formatting from any multiple dates as using "piped links" (as the Manual of Style points out) breaks the date autoformating function. This seems to me fulfill the precepts of the three guidelines for resolving date formatting for this article, i.e., Consistency within articles, Strong national ties to a topic, and Retaining the existing format. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Regardless, your changes still required reformatting because you made mistakes in nearly every instance. The one aspect of your argument that you have neglected is that when a writing style or format is established, that is the prevailing style that is maintained. However (note, modern use of "however"), I have corrected the use of dates. Bruce, you certainly tax a fellow's patience, but I am willing to make the investment. Have a good day. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your note. I had not included commas between day-date and year in the reformatted dates with bracketed month/days and years as when I checked the page in preview with preferences "off" they all still displayed correctly (i.e. "January 1, 1900") without a manually inserted comma so I figured adding such a comma would create an unwanted "double comma." It seems that Wikipedia must insert such a comma when missing by default in "bracket" coded dates so I guess it does not matter if it is inserted manually as well. I assume this is the formatting error you were referring to.


 * I am still puzzled by, and do not see the point for using, a military (or "International") dating format in this biographical article, especially when that does not seem to be the norm in other such Wikipedia articles about similar figures with a connection to aviation, Lindbergh, or both. (See for instance Wiley Post, Charles August Lindbergh, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Clarence Duncan Chamberlin, Richard Evelyn Byrd, Charles Nungesser, Hugo Eckener, Ernst A. Lehmann, all of which are bracket coded using "American" date formatting.) Please advise. Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
 * One of the prime considerations in looking at the readership of the Wikipedia articles is to recognize that the vast majority of users are actually not editors nor will they have browser date preferences set. The easiest means of addressing a format issue to to provide a consistent and easily-usable format. This article and Amelia Earhart have been the constant target of vandals in the past. A means of addressing the vandal question is to have the article under the auspices of a project group so that the members of the group would be vigilant to the constant protection of a significant article. Since no other project group had "adopted" the article, the WP:Aviation Project Group undertook its "care" and tagged it as a significant aviation article. There has been a long-standing deliberation about the use of dates that affect aviation articles. The consideration was made to look at three different dating systems, the ISO date format, popular style (m-d-y) and the formal style (d-m-y). There is no "American" style although many people believe that the popular style is used primarily in the US, but it is actually a style used throughout the world, and is merely the "popular" style. The "formal" style is more often ascribed to the UK and Europe but it also is not linked to a particular nationality. It has some inherent advantages in editing as it eliminates the double comma in phrases and it is a clean and recognizable convention. After deliberations, the ISO style was considered difficult to read for foreign and new Wiki users. A toss-up occurred between the popular and formal styles resulting in a decision to adopt the formal style that is most often used in academic works and provides an unambiguous format that is acceptable worldwide. Simple as that, it isn't a question of US-bias, it is a question of accommodating the most users. FWiW, if you want more information about the reasoning, I would ask you to consider looking at the Aviation Project Group as a valuable resource aid. Bzuk (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I understand the issue of vandalism and the necessity for vigilance, and appreciate the "adoption" of this biographical article by the aviation group to that end even though it is not strictly an "aviation" article. My issue is opting to use such a stilted style for dates which seems to me to be inimical to Wiki's general stated format, ie: "Formal tone does not mean the article should be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." Usage of the so-called "International" style (as the Wiki Manual of Style calls it) in a non-technical biographical narrative seems pedantic and wooden in comparison to employing the so-called "American" style (as it is styled in the manual) which is how people actually would use in speech and also how it appears in virtually all publications and documents -- even legal ones -- with the exception of military writing and documents. Imposing an ultaformal style on an article just because it is being watched by the aviation group seems to me to be inappropriate. My view is that this date format should really be used very sparingly, and only when there is some compelling reason to do so. It's usage in written prose tends to be generally offputting for anything other than a formal, bureaucratic, or administrative purpose because it is not the way people talk in real life...not even in academic circles. (See the other examples of aviation & Lindbergh related Wikipedia articles that I directed you to above non of which employs this dating format.) I have been writing professionally for more than forty years and have never used the date-month-year format in anything other than formal military or bureaucratic writing -- nor really have I ever seen it used anywhere in narrative or encyclopedic writing. I urge the Aviation group to rethink this in the light of the above. Thanks (Centpacrr (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
 * The decision was based on consensus and reflected issues and concerns by all members. The popular date convention and the formal or academic style is used in many publications. Many publishers style guides stipulate this form and if we are writing for a worldwide audience, it seems to be an accomodation for the editors who advocated for a style that all could accept. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC).
 * As suggested, I have looked at the WikiProject Aviation/Style guide, but the only reference I see there to date formatting is a link to the Wiki Manual of Style. I am unable, however, to find there where it says that the so-called "International" style is preferable for either aviation articles or narrative biographies. Can you direct me to where I can find this? Thanks (Centpacrr (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Bruce, you are right as I cannot find the talk page discussion that set out the project guideline for dates. I have asked for a revisit of the topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thank you. Please let me know so that i can provide my input on this issue. On checking the history of the Lindbergh article I found that the dates were formatted in the customary "month-date-year" from the entry's creation on September 9, 2002, until you changed the formatting of the then fairly mature biography on May 10, 2007, with the brief notation "rationalize dating conventions." I could not find any section in the Talk page relating to this action or the reasons therefore. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Use of authoritative and reliable sources
Editors should only use expert or substantive reference sources. The use of a student term paper does not qualify and recently the entries made using this source have been adjusted to require authoritative and reliable sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

Le Bourget image request
There's evidently a monument at Le Bourget airport in Paris, honoring Lindbergh's flight, as well as the attempt by Nungesser & Coli in L'Oiseau Blanc. I've been looking around the internet for a free one but haven't had any luck. Does anyone have an image to donate to the cause, or know where we could find one? --Elonka 19:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Images
Image size is a topic that has received considerable discussion in the past. The MoS has a specific note about this: and reflects the current usage of images. FWiW, this is the pertinent information: "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup". This results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting. Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style). Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors." Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC).


 * Which begs the question: when is size forcing appropriate? Tall, skinny images appear relatively large when left to the default thumbnail width, while short, wide images become miniscule. Perhaps short, wide images can be given the benefit of the doubt.


 * Personally, I keep mainly to the concept of having no image hardcoding at all. I expect the thumbnail default size to work for the greater majority of readers. Anybody who wants to really examine an image will click on it.


 * I think there should be a percent-based coding that takes the reader's window width and sizes the images to a specified fraction of that. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"WE"
The title of the 1927 Lindbergh book -- "WE" -- includes quotation marks as an integral part of its spelling. They are not meant to be a representation of a generic title, nor do they take the place of the current use of italics. The quotation marks instead indicated that "WE" is a nick name with a specific meaning, i.e. the "partnership" of Lindbergh and his airplane. As such, the quotation marks cannot be arbitrarily deleted as doing so changes the meaning of the title. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
 * In five different biographies, the title is merely italicized but in Lindbergh Autobiography of Values, his editor has used both italics and quotation marks, so I can see that its use is as an execeptional variant to a standard form. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
 * The quotation marks are not actually a variant to a standard, but are instead an integral part of the title of the book because they serve to show that "WE" is not a "word" but has a very specific other meaning (i.e., one other than any found in a dictionary) in this context. Lindbergh meant the title to be understood as being his own nickname for himself and his airplane as inextricably connected equal partners. Without the quotation marks this would not be the case. (See title page below)(Centpacrr (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Chamberlin.jpg
The image Image:Chamberlin.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Am1logo.jpg
 * Image:The Spirit of St. Louis VHS cover.jpg
 * Image:Ted Scott Book cover 1927.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chamberlin image was accessed from the en.wikipedia library of existing images where it was posted by another user in October, 2006, and linked to the biographical article on C.D. Chamberlin. It has been linked to the Lindbergh article as Chamberlin is mentioned there as well. Please be more specific as to the issue you are raising regarding its use in the Lindbergh article, and why it is acceptable for use in one article but not another.(Centpacrr (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Usage of "Airplane" vs "Aircraft"
Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft(Centpacrr (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

Accuracy vs "Brevity"
Many carefully researched and sourced details, recently deleted for "brevity," have been restored because their removal introduced inaccuracies, vagueness, or caused sections to become misleading. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't believe that is the case; none of the edits recently made changed any factual aspects of the article. They appeared to be merely editorial changes to style not substance. Please consider the changes as benefits to the article. Reversion is only used in cases of vanadalism, which these edits do not represent. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC).


 * I'm afraid I must disagree on that in this particular instance. As I am sure you are aware as a professional writer, often the change of even a single word (or even punctuation) can materially alter the meaning of a passage, especially if the editor is doing so only for "style" or "brevity" without sufficient regard to (or broad understanding of) the underlying content or context because he/she may not be sufficiently familiar with many aspects of the background, primary sources, and other materials on which the original text was based. While these edits may well have been made in good faith, many of them still make material (even if sometimes subtle) changes in meaning and/or context which tend to diminish the accuracy of the article and/or introduce misleading aspects. Lindbergh, as you are probably aware, is a subject which I have researched and studied closely for many years, and about which I have access to a great many materials, original documents, artifacts, etc, (many in my own collections) which are not widely available. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm trimming it myself, not for brevity but for clarity. The sentence explaining who Lindbergh's two parents were was far too long, with a seemingly interminable series of clauses explaining papa Lindbergh's origins and activities. Any of our marvelous readers who gives a damn about him can click on the link and instantly be at his article. "Slim"'s lovely mother isn't graced by an article of her own, so I left her personal information in plain view. Also, it appeared to me that Lindbergh's father and grandfather were being rolled into one in the way that the sentences progressed. Lastly, I don't remember voting in the election of The One Guy Who Gets To Decide The Tone. We are all editors here. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody previously raised either the disparagement of readers or "tone" of the article as issues that I can see, only "accuracy" and completeness. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Regardless, wiki editors, being who they are, writers with a particular emphasis on encyclopedic writing, often look at a "piece" with a certain predisposition as to saliency, conciseness as well as comprehension by a reader. There is a certain style that many wiki editors adopt that would not be appropriate in another context, say, popular writing. You may find some of the strictures a bit onerous, but again, remember, it is part of the "house style." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Am I to understand, then, that it is the consensus policy of the Wikipedia community that accuracy and completeness are subordinate to the adherence to an undefined "house style" and therefore information and context should be sacrificed in the name of the lowest common denominator? If so, than my issue is that I appear to have fundamentally misunderstood Wikipedia's mission. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC))
 * I did not see any edits that changed facts in the latest edits but a number of editors did make revisions that "tightened" the story. The process of incorporating a Wikipedia Manual of Style is one that all editors grapple with. How much, how little, the depth, the range, and extent of a topic is substantially different when creating an encyclopedic work. Typically articles run to 2,000 words or less, so a concise style is often preferred. In the case of a substantial article, sometimes a sub-article or "daughter" article is adopted so that a subject can be further developed. One example of this is the Supermarine Spitfire article that has morphed into a number of complimentary side articles. FWiW, don't think your contributions are not valued; your knowledge and background are an asset to the WikiProject aircraft group. Bzuk (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the comments and kind words. I will try to do my best to fit in within my philosophy that detail illuminates and helps readers to better understand the overall context of articles, and hopefully also provides them with new gateways that might encourage them to do additional research on their own based on something they might have found in those details that unexpectedly piqued their curiosity. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

1941
He was dubbed "America's most dangerous man" by the press in 2nd half of 1941, after expressing his view on the jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.230.250 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review
Issues resulting in quick failure:

1. The following images have issues:
 * Image:Charles Lindbergh flight to Brussels.ogg (no rationale)
 * Image:Hermann Goering gives Charles Lindbergh a Nazi medal.jpg (US government photographer? Really?)
 * Image:Fordslindbergh.jpg (duplicate. Find the alternative at Commons)
 * Image:WE cover.jpg, Image:Ted Scott Book cover 1927.jpg (lower DPI images would better support fair use.)
 * Image:SoSL Fabric 1927.jpg (erroneous watermark tag?)

2. An IP editor recently took out contested facts, which were reinserted with tags in violation of WP:BURDEN. Despite the fact that the IP editor did not edit war over the reinsertion, that is a mark against stability.

Other GA criteria were not examined. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lindburgh a Peace activist?
This sounds a very POV view. Please provide a reputable source for this label.Lumos3 (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)