This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"It would not take long for him to be presented with the circumstances to prove how seriously he took this obligation."
Just a note, in case my edit summary is missed: the sentence "It would not take long for him to be presented with the circumstances to prove how seriously he took this obligation." is inherently non-neutral (hagiographic, rather) and draws its own conclusions regarding Lindbergh's motivations and actions. Please provide a source which uses the same events to make the same points, otherwise this is OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This statement is not "original research" but comes right from Lindbergh's own words written in both "WE" (1927) and The Spirit of St. Louis (1953) (refs added to article). This is also explained in detail in the paragraph immediately following the sentence. The oath that Lindbergh had to sign in order to be entrusted with mails by the USPOD Air Mail Service required that him to "maintain custody and control" of those mails while transporting them. The paragraph following this sentence makes it clear that this is exactly what he did when he was twice forced to bail out of his mailplane while enroute to Chicago. As soon as he landed by parachute the first thing that he did was find his crashed DH-4s and then retrieve, secure, and arrange to entrain the mails contained therein to Chicago which was the sworn "obligation" that he took "seriously". Centpacrr (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the citations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed this again. It seems too self-serving to reference this to his autobiography. We would need a third-party source and more neutral language before we could use this. --John (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I see most of my stylistic improvements to this article have been undone. There is some good stuff here but it does need a bit of help with the writing style. I have also added a tag as I think the In popular culture section is bloated and almost entirely unreferenced to third party sources. It could do with a good trim. --John (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This user's personal so-called "stylistic improvements" to long standing language were made unilaterally and without regard to the article's established consensus. These multiple edits not only failed to "improve" the article, but instead served to both pablumize it's content and significantly alter the meaning of the text. (A full discussion of this can be found in an earlier thread started by the above user on September 12 which he curiously mistitled "Lindburgh" [sic].)
As for the "Popular culture" section of the article, it is hardly "bloated" but quite the opposite. Charles Lindbergh was by far one of the most famous (and some say infamous), written about, photographed, filmed, quoted, feted, and controversial people in the world for much of the 20th Century (especially from 1927 to his death in 1974), and as such was a HUGE subject in "popular culture". (Among other things well more than one hundred books have been published about him since 1927 and he was one of very few persons besides US Presidents and Benjamin Franklin to be honored by more than one US Postage stamp with three issued in 1927, 1977, and 1995.) What is included in that section of the Lindbergh WP entry actually represents only a small part of what exists in popular culture worldwide about Lindbergh that would properly fit in this category. What is there (most of which was added by editors other than myself) seems to be generally well sourced however I will look it over and add some secondary and tertiary citations if they seem appropriate and provide access to relevant supplementary information. Centpacrr (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I have now finished adding fourteen new references to third party sources to "Popular culture" section, deleted one somewhat dubious item, and removed the tag. Centpacrr (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Trimmed and restructured at bit more. May add some other significant examples later. Centpacrr (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The cruft about FDR thinking he was a Nazi etc. is WP:UNDUE as the section is pretty large to begin with. The bit about "bootlegging" is totally unwarranted in this biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
That FDR had this opinion is quite noteworthy and belongs in the article, unless it can be shown that the source is not reliable. Details on the extent of Lindbergh's fall from heroic icon of the 1920s are fully warranted, whether or not one believes they were due to legitimate causes. History is full of public opinion created by misunderstanding or worse. It's still history. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually -- it isn't. And I note that the "bootlegging" detritus has no level of basis even approaching the FDR iterated quotes ... promoting "misunderstandings" of history is not exactly the proper remit of an encyclopedia article. Collect (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I was not "promoting" anything. I gave no opinion on the bootlegging trivia, which was only presented as a possible allegation. If you want to get combative about that, that's your choice, but don't put it on me. If you had only taken that out in the first place I would not have responded. I restored your previous removal of the entire paragraph, including the FDR material - which is what I was talking about above. I see you now left that in the article. Don't come back on the Talk page and make it sound like you're still fighting about that when you're not. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The source does not state that the material was disseminated, and a diligent search shows zero RS sources referring to the allegations. The source is about Hoover, and uses internal documents which - at this point -- are now only found in this article, of all places. Collect (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)