Talk:Charles Lindbergh/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Note to article's main editors (or anyone else interested): per WP:MOSIMAGES, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar.". In multiple cases this is not followed, and one (the quote box with the image in it) completely ruins the formatting of the text). Also, please pay attention to the non-free content. I've removed three non-free images: per WP:NFCC, a non-free image is to be "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Editors have yet to argue either point for these images, and the onus (under the same policy) is on those who wish to use the images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I must strongly disagree with the unilateral removal of three images all of which are relevant to specific aspects of the subject of the article (Charles Lindbergh), illustrate material specifically discussed in the text, and have each "lived" happily in this article for a period of years. There has been no community consensus demonstrated to remove any of them, no previous objections have ever been raised over the period of years they have been in place, nor has any real case been made here that they violate the spirit and letter of WP:NFCC. (With respect, the parroted reason given above is so ambiguous and subjective as to be essentially meaningless.) If an editor believes that there may be a case to delete images the appropriate procedure it seems to me is to make it in here first and then allow the community of interested editors to discuss it as opposed to making such major arbitrary unilateral changes to long standing stable content. Centpacrr (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, the onus is on those who wish to use the images. See NFCC. If you are not able to provide a reason why these images meet NFCC#8, why "omission would be detrimental to [a reader]'s understanding [of the article at hand]", then they should not be in the article. I see no rationale behind your unilateral restoration, although if you wish to obtain wider community consensus then I will simply list at the proper venue (i.e. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Non-free images in Charles Lindbergh). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, you have given no rationale for removing {{Too many photos}} from this article. Are you seriously saying that text boxes which split the actual text and sandwiched images are in line with our manual of style? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


I have indeed stated above the "rationale" for including these images which is that they do not meet the "standard" of "omission being detrimental to a reader's understanding" which is so individually subjective and ambiguous as to be an essentially meaningless "standard" because it can always be reasonably argued that there are no images on WP which are "essential" for for a reader's understanding. The reasonable standard for illustrations (which is what the true function of image files is) should be are they relevant to specific aspects of the subject of the article and/or do they illustrate material specifically discussed in the text. These three illustrations reasonably meet those two criteria. A standard that proposes that one must basically "prove a negative" (i.e. that its omission would be "detrimental to understanding") is just not one that can ever be reasonably met.
As for publicly unilaterally tagging the article that there are "too many images" without opening that for discussion in talk beforehand to see if the involved editors agree implies to those who visit the article that this issue has already been discussed and that consensus has been reached among those who have been long time contributors to the development of this article (and therefore know it and the reasons for including each of the illustrations the best) have already agreed with your personal view on this which is clearly not the case. Again the place to discuss that is in here where it can be determined by that group if indeed there are "too many images" and if so, which ones could be deleted. By so tagging the article beforehand you have put the cart before the horse as there is no agreement (or has there been any discussion) that this is even the case. Centpacrr (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @#1: You have to have a distinct, solid rationale for all four images. I still don't see you providing one
@#2: Where in policy does it say discussion must take place before tagging? Ask any uninvolved editor, and I can pretty much guarantee that they'll say there are too many images. The MOS is against sandwiching images: read it. That means this article is currently against our guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I as stated earlier I disagree on both points. Employing Pythonesque gainsaying in this matter both for for the reasons I pointed out above and because it implies that "form" should trump "substance" by relying on a "standard" that is so ambiguously subjective as to be essentially meaningless. This is in my view fundamentally faulty. I will state again, however, that the "rationale" that I have provided is that the images are both relevant to specific aspects of the subject of the article and that they illustrate material specifically referred to in the text. I find the claim that there are "too many images" is equally subjective and has not been objectively supported. Centpacrr (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Objectively supported"? Please. MOS:IMAGES says no sandwiching text. This article sandwiches text, at both 1024*600 and whatever I have at home. And this is not objective how? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I note that as of this time stamp there has yet to be any in-depth discussion of how not using the images would be detrimental to a reader's understanding. The onus is on those who wish to use the images (WP:NFCC), so please fulfill your part. Arguing that the NFCC is not clear is not a valid reason to use non-free images here. Please fulfill the requirements set for those wishing to keep images by providing proper argumentation for all four images (individually, as NFC is treated on a case-by-case bias). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I left my comment on the non-free content at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Non-free_images_in_Charles_Lindbergh. I think that case is quite simple and quite clear. As for the MOS/sandwich issues, I have to agree that this article is too liberal with its inclusion of images (we don't need book covers, and why is a picture of his outfit--basically a long leather coat, from what I can gather--necessary if it's not proven relevant in the text?), and that the sandwiching (esp. in "Air Mail pilot and pioneer") does not aid legibility. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the abundance of images, at first glance I would think the Robertson Aircraft Logo and linen sample were unnecessary. And why are the images of "covers" (envelopes?) useful to the article? (1,2,3) I understand they are collector's items, but do they really add to the article? (keeping in mind there is a link at the bottom of the article pointing to addtional Lindbergh media on Commons) – JBarta (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no particular problem with removing the RAC logo or the flight suit image. The other four images are a far different story, however. The Spirit of St. Louis fabric sample (which does not squeeze or impinge on anything in the text) came from a piece of the Spirit's covering that was replaced when parts were torn off by the massive crowds at Le Bourget when Lindbergh landed. It comes from a piece that Lindbergh presented to the Belgian ambassador to France in advance of his flight in the Spirit to Brussels from Paris shortly before he and the Spirit returned to the US on the Navy cruiser U.S.S. Memphis. It is also one of only a very such examples of a piece of the Spirit that was on the plane during the New York-Paris flight that is in private hands. (The Spirit itself has been at the Smithsonian since April, 1928.)
As for the covers, one is a large commercial CC he carried on his first Air Mail flight from Chicago to St. Louis inaugurating CAM 2 on April 15, 1926, another is a well known Registered Mail franked USPOD penalty cover addressed to his friend, Asst. Postmaster W.A. Steiger in Springfield, IL, autographed by Lindbergh and all of his fellow CAM 2 pilots during the two days of "Lindbergh Again Flies the Air Mail" flights in February, 1928 (this cover has also been exhibited in many national Air Mail shows over the years since then), and the third is one of the very few surviving covers (most were later destroyed by the great hurricane struck Havana in 1933) carried on the only flight (made from Santo Domingo to Havana) of the Spirit of St. Louis in which he ever carried mail. These images represent and illustrate three of Lindbergh's most famous flights, his central importance in the promotion of the Air Mail service, and through that his major contribution to the development of the civil aviation in the United States which was one of the central accomplishments of his life. Centpacrr (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not entirely sold on the importance of the fabric sample or covers to the article, but we'll let that go for now. Would you be willing to remove images (logo? flight suit?) and rearrange the remaining images to remedy the "sandwiching" complaint? – JBarta (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, on a related note, I notice this article uses two infoboxes, Infobox person and Infobox military person. Looks a little clumsy and there is some repeated information. Wouldn't it be better to pick one or the other? – JBarta (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not add the "military infobox" and don't know who did but it seems totally redundant and superfluous to me and I have therefore removed it altogether. With the exception of his year as a cadet in flight training in 1924-25 during his entire lifetime Lindbergh only spent four months on temporary "active" military duty in the spring of 1939 acting was as a consultant to Gen. Hap Arnold, the Chief of the USAAF, to help him evaluate the readiness of that branch for a potential war. His service in the South Pacific during WWII as all a civilian consultant as opposed to a service member as he had resigned his commission prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor and President Roosevelt refused to reinstate it. His "promotion" from captain to colonel after the 1927 flight to Paris was largely honorary. Centpacrr (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Since it was suggested that I write down which ones I think would not be necessary:
File:SoSL US Stamps.jpg - Partially redundant to our other stamp (which is visible in more detail). I would move the other stamp further down, to this section
Either Medal of Honor or Congressional Medal - Only one is needed to illustrate the awards section. I'd keep the Congressional Medal, but there is a good argument for the Medal of Honor as well.
File:Elizabeth.gif - I'd remove either this or the statue, though I would prefer to remove Elizabeth because we already have a Lindbergh perfusion pump, and it's visually similar
File:433dfws.jpg and File:Vmf222a_insig.jpg - Neither is really pertinent to Lindbergh himself, but representative of groups he served with. As such, I'd trim these
File:Service Cross of the German Eagle.png - Interesting but not needed for the article; we don't need to see the medal when we have an image of Lindbergh receiving it.
The cheque and the post envelopes - very little, visually, to offer. I think most people can imagine what a cheque looks like, and postal mail hasn't changed much visually in a hundred years.
File:Lincoln_Standard_biplane.jpg - There is an aircraft just below this one, which is more directly involved with Lindbergh, so I'd scratch this

Note that there may have to be some rejigging as well. Also, it's possible to do what is standard for military figures and include images representing all of his awards, united in a single section (see Christian F. Schilt for instance) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The number of images have now been trimmed a bit and the rest have been rearranged so that they are distributed evenly and no longer cause overlapping that squeezes any text thereby resolving the MOS issue raised by Crisco, the OP of the tag requesting this be addressed. (The tag has now also been removed.) The choice of images, however, is not based on a false premise of their being "necessary" (or "needed") as no image can ever meet that standard. WP could still exist (although in a far poorer fashion) with no images at all. The proper standard for images, graphics, illustrations, tables, and any other non-text files is instead their relevance as illustrations to and of material and topics (either expressed or implied) that are covered in an article. Centpacrr (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The watch is still sandwiching text with the poster, the photo of Lindbergh as a child is still sandwiching the infobox. The tail ends of several images are still sandwiching text as well (wanted poster, newsreel, perfusion pump, grave, statue). File:WE Title page 1927.jpg is not PD text because of the amount of text involved. Either find out if there is a copyright notice in the book, as I suggested earlier, or stop uploading the text. I will say the images look a bit better, but I'd suggest trimming a few more. Also, if you disagree with the wording of the WP:NFCC, then go to that page's talk page. You're not going to have any changes here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Crisco, are you trying to view this page on an iPhone or something. On my 13" MacBook no image even comes close to impinging an any other and all but two are separated by at least one or more paragraphs. If you expect WP pages to be scaled to the lowest common denominator (i.e. smallest screen) there might as well be no images on it at all. Perhaps it would help you if you simply clicked on the preferences link and changed how WP pages (and especially images) display on whatever machine you are having a problem with.
  • As for the "WE" title page, PD-Text states that it is for use with images that "only contain very simple geometric shapes and text written in very simple typefaces" and that's all this five year old WP file is: a one word book title ("WE") followed by 20 words (which are not even a sentence and contain no verbs or punctuation) identifying the book contains the "flier's own story" of his life, flight to Paris, and views on aviation; one very small, simple mostly solid geometric shape of the outline of his airplane, and the names of the author (Lindbergh), the writer of the forward (Amb. Myron Herrick), and the book's publisher (G.P. Putnam & Sons), all set in simple black type faces on a solid white background. None of this is sufficiently "original" to be copyrightable. As this is not a "non-free" file there is also no reason for me to go to WP:NFCC to discuss it.
  • I don't know what you mean to imply by "You're not going to have any changes here." Is this supposed to be a threat of some kind (like you are going to again charge me with edit warring) if I continue to contribute to an article on which I have been working (with more than 900 edits) for more than five years? Frankly I am also puzzled as to why you have suddenly become so fixated on an article that has been on WP for eight years in which you have never previously shown any interest nor to which you have ever contributed. Centpacrr (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Read the statement in context. "You're not going to have any changes [to WP:NFCC] here." This is not the right venue for trying to enact changes to that policy. WT:NFCC is. It's a statement of fact. You were edit warring at this page, and could have been blocked. Read WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours".
As for the originality, as individual words there is none, but as a totality it approaches (and I believe passes) the threshhold of originality. That discussion has nothing to do with the NFCC, nor did I say it did. I have offered you an alternative, since you obviously have the books in your possession: see if there is a copyright notice. If there is not, as a 1927 book (before the requirement for a copyright notice was rescinded) it's public domain.
My resolution is 1366*768, which is fairly standard. If I were on Mobile Wikipedia the images would not stagger. At most I'd trim another two images, but I really don't feel like fighting over that. This is already more or less in line with the MOS, and fits our free media policies much better. I have no intent on "kicking you out" of the article, and I take offense to your assumption of bad faith there. I want the article to fit in line with our policies, no more, no less.
As for "you have never previously shown any interest nor to which you have ever contributed", you belie that claim (and your lack of knowledge that it is wrong) by brightening an image which I restored and inserted into the article in place of the unrestored version. Please stop the claims of bad faith. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The image of Lindbergh and the Spirit at Roosevelt Field which you had altered recently and I then fixed (it was way too dark and had a flaw in the lower left corner that had not been repaired) had existed in the article for many years and was thus not new addition. What you edited was an independent existing image file that happened to be used in the Lindbergh article, but not the article itself. I have worked on hundreds of image files on WP that appear in articles that I have never seen so working on a image does not constitute working on any article(s) in which it may appear. Those are two completely different things. As for the Lindbergh article itself (which I have been watching and editing for at least five years) I had never seen any contributions you may have made to its content or that you had ever added any images so that's what I meant by your having not shown any interest in it or having ever made any affirmative contributions.
I disagree with your extremely narrow interpretation of what threshhold of originality is and what ""only contain[s] very simple geometric shapes and text written in very simple typefaces" means and think that the content of this image falls very much within the spirit and the letter of PD-text. What the "20 words" in question indicate is that Lindbergh addresses three things in the book: his life, his flight, and aviation. The way it communicates this is no more original than a shopping list. The rest of the image is made up of a one word book title ("WE"), three persons' names, and a simple very small silhouette of his well known airplane the shape of which is not copyrightable.
The resolution on my screen is 1280x800 and I am experiencing no squeezing or impingement at all (not even close) so why you are having an issue is a puzzlement to me. Perhaps you can solve your problem by reducing your default browser font size and/or adjusting the display preferences that WP provides. (You can find the link to do that in the WP page header between "sandbox" and "watchlist".) I've had to do that myself when I got this machine (a 13" MacBook Pro using Firefox 23.0 as a browser) two years ago (and several machines before that) and all the images on this page display without interfering with each other or the text (and did so for me before as well) when set at a default font size of 18 which is a perfectly readable resolution.
As for "edit warring" the only material I removed were images that I had originally created, uploaded, and added to the article, and only did so to demonstrate a point about the fallacy of applying what i consider an unenforceable subjective "standard" to one class of images and not to another. I then explained what i was doing an why in detail above. (All the images have now been restored.) By the way it could just as easily be said that your own actions here of repeatedly deleting four long standing (five to seven years in the article) images after both another editor and I had disputed that and restored them was a violation of 3RR on your part as well.
Disagreements in interpretation of policy, guidelines, value of content, formatting, editorial judgement, etc is not a demonstration of failing to assume good faith on the part of other editors. It is just having different views. Centpacrr (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You are saying I had "never shown interest" in this article,. Editing the image is showing interest. Any other definition is obfuscation, and any attempt to rework what you meant is unhelpful. That being said, there is no requirement for editors to have previously worked on an article in order for them to help bring it in line.
Overlapping and sandwiching actually gets worse as one's monitor resolution increases, not as it decreases. The reason is that the text has to fill in the extra white space, and images don't resize automatically. As I said, I'm not interested in arguing whatever sandwiching may remain as this is now nearly completely in line with the MOS.
Reread edit warring again, particularly the bit about 3RR. Are you denying you had three reverts on this page in 24 hours? You obsess over objective fact, so take a look: 1, 2, 3. You were rightly warned, and if you don't believe me you can go ask any editor you trust.
As for the image, just answer a simple question: is there, or is there not, a copyright notice in the book? I'm getting exasperated as I've offered you a way out which is not only within policy, but which would also allow you to use the cover again (as you seem to prefer), and you seem to be deliberately ignoring it. I'm not here to fight with you, I'm here to help this article on an important man get in better shape and follow our guidelines and policies.
If you are claiming that the cover page should be PD-text or PD-simple, you are welcome to do so (as you already have at the deletion discussion). The venue for a deletion discussion is at the deletion discussion itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • At 1366x768 your monitor's resolution differs from mine by less than 2% which does not seem to me to be nearly enough of a difference to explain your problem of having overlapping while I have none. What I suggested is that you change (reduce or enlarge) your browser's default font display size and/or to readjust the WP page preferences to change the way they display on your monitor to solve or mitigate your issue with image overlapping.
  • As for alleged "edit warring" I have explained in detail above what I did and why (and that it only involved materials that I had created and contributed to the page, not those of anybody else) and will leave it at that. At the same time you deleted/reverted the same long standing images three times yourself after they had been restored by two different editors here, here, and here which seems to me to constitute exactly the same thing you are accusing me of.
  • Your apparent position that by making a single edit two months ago to an long existing image file that has also long been used on the Lindbergh page (i.e., not one that you found and added to it) somehow constitutes "showing interest" in the long term development and maintenance of the Lindbergh article in the context of the question I asked you even though you had never edited the article itself strikes me as basically a straw man argument. One's editing a single image file one time that appears in an article that the editor has never previously or subsequently edited does not, in my view, constitute being a contributor to that article, nor for that matter does it indicate that such an editor has ever even visited the article in which it appears. As I said before, I have made more than 900 edits to and been watching this article closely for more than five years and do not recall ever seeing any activity on it by you. That was the basis for me asking you why you seem to have suddenly become so strongly fixated on it now in the light of your lack of having ever edited it before. As I pointed out I have edited hundreds of images that appear in articles that I have never visited. I would never think to claim, however, doing so constituted my "showing interest" in the development, editing, and maintenance of any of those articles.
  • The book "WE" (of which I have several copies including a July 1927 first edition copy) is of course copyrighted and I never meant to imply anything else. That's why I had posted the images of the cover and dust jacket (which both contain elements of graphic design) as "non free" and attached appropriate rationales to use them in the Lindbergh article and elsewhere. For the reasons I have stated above and elsewhere, however, I do not see that this applies to the title page image which I believe instead meets the criteria on PD-text for files on en:Wikipedia where I uploaded it in 2008. I have not, however, ever uploaded this file to Commons as I only do that for certain files for which I own the copyright or images that were published in the US prior to 1923 which are thus PD by statute so Commons' policy and guidelines do not apply to it. Centpacrr (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This? Learn what a revert is, then talk to me. I was at 2R yesterday.
You're moving the bar, Cenpacrr, and that shows you are in a weak position. Again, that is not what you said the first time. Also, and again (I already brought this up), since when is there a requirement for an individual to have been a long term editor before he or she can try to bring a page in line with policy? There is no such requirement.
Your reply about "We" does not answer my question, at all. My question was "is there a copyright notice". That requires nothing but a yes or no answer. If there is, then you can (assuming you care enough about the cover) try and see if the copyright was renewed 28 years after registration (so in 1955 or 1956). If there is not, you can note that and upload to Commons or Wikipedia as PD-US-no notice.
As the main issues of NFCC content and overabundance of images are dealt with, I think any further discussion here will not be about the article itself. Your inability to directly rebut (or even acknowledge) arguments you don't agree with, your inability to differentiate between a bold edit and a revert, your fundamental misunderstanding of the NFCC, and your apparent ownership issues (particularly in your "I have made more than 900 edits to and been watching this article closely for more than five years ..." bit) suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. These are worrying, but as you have been a fairly good content (particularly image) editor for quite a while now I am not going to follow through any further unless you force my hand. Have a good day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me briefly address you points one by one:

  • To me your first "revert" was that you "reverted" an older edit (the one when the images were originally added) and then ended up deleting them twice more after two other editors (Bzuk and myself) restored them for a total three deletions of the same files. To me that is constructively 3RR.
  • You have apparently also misunderstood the intent of my original question. I did not say (and never did) that there was any requirement that one had to have edited the article before (everybody has a first edit) to work on it, I only asked you why you seemed to have become suddenly fixated on an article (and general subject) with which you had no demonstrated previous activity or interest. I based this perception on not having ever seen you contribute to this or any other similar article during the five plus years I have actively worked on the Lindbergh and other aviation articles.
  • When I said "WE" was copyrighted I would never have said so had it not had a printed copyright notice. I thought would have been obvious to you in my answer that is copyrighted.
  • Simply because I may have different views and/or interpretation on some things on WP does not mean that I do not acknowledge that others may disagree with me or am ignoring their arguments. It just means that I disagree with them. You and the others I disagree with are, of course, entitled to their views, but so am I to mine. If I find another's argument is convincing I am more than willing to change my mind and hope that others are equally open minded. If neither one can convince the other to change their mind, however, it's also fine to agree to disagree and move on. It is not really ok, however, to make veiled threats about such honest disagreements (such as "I am not going to follow through any further unless you force my hand.") with one's fellow editors. That I find to be a troubling attitude.
  • We are all here for the same reason ... to contribute what we can to help make Wikipedia better. But also remember that there are no "editors-in-chief" on WP. All of us are volunteers and deserve to be respected for that irrespective of our different views on how to contribute to the project. Unless there is some clear reason to the contrary, I always assume good faith on the part of the other members of the WP community (yourself included of course) and presume the others do the same. As our issues with this article seem to now be resolved let's leave it at that and move on. Centpacrr (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


The article says he was an only child, but he did have 16 siblings from his father's other wives. I remember visiting the Lindberg house in Little Falls, MN as a child and being shocked at the size of the family. I did look this up and did find his father's page. (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I think you are confusing this Charles the aviator with his father Charles the Congressman (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"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)

Needs a copyedit

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)

FDR and Bootlegging

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)

Linbergh flying partner

Sections missing?

There seem to be whole sections of his life missing, including his 7,000 mile tour of South America in late 1929, his tour of Asia in the Sirius and the subsequent North Atlantic-Europe-Africa-South America tour also in the Sirius. Were they deemed not relevent or have they just not been written yet? (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)