Talk:Charles Lindbergh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Did Lindbergh make the first artificial heart?

????? DID HE?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.84.229 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject - the Wiki article contradicts its own source (the Time article from 1935), which states that Lindbergh began working with Carrel in 1928, well before the death of his sister (the work was also seemingly carried out at the Rockefeller Inst, not in France)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770054,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.155.123 (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lindy's other long-distance flights

Hello everyone, I'm researching biographies of famous aviators and I would really like to know more about Lindy's flying career. I know all about his 1927 trans-Atlantic flight from NY to Paris, also about his flight from San Diego to NY via St. Louis and his tour of Latin America, but I would like more info on his later long-distance flights (from 1928 onward). Could anyone put this info in the article or on the talk page, or at least tell me where I can look Di you know Lindys favorite food was nutella? Feedin the troll

76.21.37.87 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"serendipitously"

So we've got a sentence which says:

The search finally ended on May 12 when the remains of an infant were serendipitously discovered by truck driver William Allen about two miles (3 km) from the Lindberghs' home in woods near a road just north of the small village of Mount Rose, NJ.

The meaning of "serendipitous" is "by happy accident", not just "by accident" as this revert suggests. If we must use an adverb here, a far better choice would just be "accidentally", which doesn't carry any unfortunate connotations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the term "serendipitously" (which has been in the article for more than a year) is exactly the word intended to describe the circumstances of the finding the the remains of the Lindbergh baby as its happening was both fortuitous for the NJSP and accidental on the part of the truck driver. This is a correct usage of the word in U.S. English. Centpacrr (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It has to be a dictionary definition and I have the following:

n. pl. ser·en·dip·i·ties

1. The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident.

2. The fact or occurrence of such discoveries.

3. An instance of making such a discovery. (American Heritage and Collins dictionaries have the same wording) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

What is "fortunate" about finding the corpse of a child, especially one who it had presumably been hoped was still alive? It's a gruesome discovery. The word is ill-chosen and there are plenty of better alternatives, such as the neutral "accidentally". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was fortunate that the child was found at all since the kidnappers intended that a discovery would not be made. There is no inference of it being a "happy occurrence". The word is what it is. FWiW, I rarely agree with Bruce on anything but in this case, the word was scrupulously chosen and is bolstered by references to dictionary definitions. Bzuk (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Really? So we'd be okay with having "the police fortunately found the child's corpse before money was transferred"? I'm not seeing why the implication that this was a positive outcome is important enough to put in the article. Do the sources dealing with the event treat the finding of the body as a lucky occurrence? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Flavoring the event by describing the event as lucky or happy is not what was happening; a truck driver came upon the corpse while not looking for the Lindbergh baby. He serendipitously made the discovery. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Except that "serendipitously" does, by any number of definitions that I could drag up from reputable sources, carry connotations of good fortune. if it didn't, I wouldn't be objecting to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The originator of this word is the 18th century English author Horace Walpole who coined it in a letter dated January 28, 1754, to Horace Mann about an heraldic discovery in which he wrote that "this discovery, indeed, is almost of that kind which I call Serendipity, a very expressive word." He formed the word from "Serendip" which was an old name for Sri Lanka, and explained that this name was part of the title of "a silly fairy tale, called The Three Princes of Serendip in which as their highnesses traveled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of." This was the case with the discovery of the Lindbergh baby by truck driver William Allen, i.e., a discovery, made by accident, of something in which he was not in quest of. (And Bzuk and I don't really disagree on everything, :=) )Centpacrr (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not the whole definition. The original story also attached a positive connotation to such incidents. In this case, that positive connotation leads to a situation where the word looks ill-chosen, and the word "accidentally" provides imparts exactly the same knowledge to the reader without the questionable connotation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What dictionary definition do you have that makes this assertion? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

"Fortunate" (as in "The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident.") does not necessarily imply that the discovery is a "happy" one, but it can also be either neutral or negative (sad) as the root word from which "fortunate" is derived ("fortune") includes among its definitions the following: fate, lot, destiny, and chance, all four of which can have negative connotations as well as positive ones. "Accidently" does not affirmatively address the issue of the truck driver's unexpected chance discovery of the body happening when he was clearly not looking for it. By definition, however, "serendipitously" does include these factors and therefore is the most accurate and appropriate word to be used in this context. Centpacrr (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to be honest here and indicate my opinion that at this point we should just agree to disagree and move on. I think that we could continue to contest the choice of using the word Serendipity or some derivation of it inperpetuity and not reach an agreement. Below are some more significant changes that need to be addressed so that this article can mature in WP and get to GA status. I would like it very much if we can move on from this issue for the moment and address them before continuing with this particular disagreement. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually there is only one editor (who, to my knowledge, has never made any contributions to the Lindbergh article) who has an issue with the word "serendipitously" and Bzuk and I (the two most active editors on the article) have been trying to explain to him why I selected that particular word to describe the circumstances of the discovery of the Lindbergh baby to him. Centpacrr (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I undestand, it just seems like a rather serious discussion over what I would consider to be a rather trivial detail.. Rearding the review I didn't see anything particularly difficult or detrimental to the article as I was afraid of but it seems like most of the GA comments where related to inline citations, use of bullets and short paragraphs so the suggested changes should be fairly easy to correct. Here are a few things that I would like to run by you before I take any action to keep us all on the same team:

• In regards to the Medal of Honor, military awards and a few other areas I think we should change the reference to reflect the Army Center for Military history that contains the Medal of Honor citation or others as appropriate rather than the Charles Lindbergh.com site. I think this is a good site but it could give the perception of being a bit oneseided.
• I also would like to restructure the awards to actually look like his awards ribbon as in Michael J. Murphy or a table like Jared C. Monti. Either one is fine with me but please let me know what you prefer.
• In regards to the honors and awards I think at some point in the future it might be beneficial to break these into a separate article. I think he got more than enough to warrant its own article.
• Expand the citations to use cite web, book, journal, etc as appropriate rather than the bare links.
• add citations to areas where they are missing, especially the ones with the citation needed tags already.
• Convert the bullets in the popular culture section to prose
• move the postal stamp up to honors and awards section.

Please let me know what you think of these changes. --Kumioko (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

While the discussion on "serendipitously" is a bit long, I think with my last comment on it the complaining editor should be satisfied. As both a professional writer and book author of more than forty years experience (I am currently working on my fifth book which will be published in the UK in the Spring), and as a former English teacher as well, I select the words I use in writing (such as "serendipitously" in this case) very carefully and when challenged always defend their usage, and the reasons therefore. I really don't mind doing so as these discussions often lead to the broadening of knowledge for both the participants (myself included) and others who may come across the discussions later on.

• As for Lindbergh's military decorations (about which I expect that you are far more expert than I), and his other awards, I do not have strong feelings on how they should be handled. (My only real contribution to that section was the image of the Congressional Gold Medal.) You should feel free to work on that section as you see fit.

• Adding and/or expanding sources and citations where needed seems appropriate.

• I don't really see a strong case for changing the bulleted "popular culture" items as they are really brief squibs with links to more material on each topic. This seems to me to be an efficient and reader friendly format to accomplish this as it quickly gives enough information to tell the reader the basics without overdoing it. I would leave this alone.

• I would also leave the postage stamp section as it is as these are not really personal "awards" but instead stamps that commemorate the original flight and its 50th anniversary. The 10-cent June, 1927, C-10 Air Mail stamp was also issued because of Lindbergh's association with the USPOD Air Mail Service and his strong promotion thereof. Postage stamps are really quite different than personal honors, awards, or decorations, and deserve the small section they have. Centpacrr (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't thoroughly read all this discussion where you defend word choice, but since "serendipitously" didn't clarify anything and was causing some debate I just removed it and a few others. It is not needed to specify that Mr. Allen wasn't looking for Lindbergh. The mention of his occupation and the fact that the finding was two months after the kidnapping makes it clear to me he wasn't part of an organized search. Stihdjia (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "serendipitously" was selected, as discussed above, because it accurately describes the circumstances under which the body of the Lindbergh infant was discovered. The very fact that the discoverer was not looking for the child is what made his finding the body a serendipitous event. As can be seen above, this issue was discussed at great length two and a half years ago and consensus was reached at that time by the long time developers of the article that this is the correct usage and thus it does not really need to be litigated again. Centpacrr (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello sir, thank you for all of your contributions to the C. Lindbergh article and all of WP. I sincerely enjoyed the article. I could find practically no mistakes or factual errors, and found it to be a very entertaining piece of work. However, there were several flourishes that I cannot justify in an encyclopedic context, though it was flawless as a journalistic piece. The S-word that's caused a (minor) fuss for a few years now... I understand that this usage may be, technically, correct (if archaic - WP itself defines serendipity as a "happy accident" and even suggests an opposite for tragic events). However, I believe the vast majority of readers either skip over the word because they are unfamiliar with it, or attach vague but deep connotations of happy coincidence. Thus readers either ignore the word entirely or find it to be hugely inappropriate - I certainly did. I appreciate that you do not want to remove content from the article, and I agree that it should be made clear Mr. Allen was not looking for the child. The word choice though is clearly causing some distress. While you claim a consensus is reached, to me it seems you've bullied everyone into accepting an emotional word in a work to which you are emotionally attached. I will be re-reverting after a while but feel free to educate me on why finding a corpse is a pleasant surprise. Stihdjia (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe "unintentionally" would be a better choice?

Thank you for your kind words about the work of myself and others on this article to which a number of us have been contributing extensively (in my case both text and images of materials from my extensive personal collection of Linberghiana) for many years. As several of the article's major contributors have explained above, the definition of "serendipitious(ly)" is:

1. The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident.

2. The fact or occurrence of such discoveries.

3. An instance of making such a discovery.

(American Heritage and Collins dictionaries have the same wording)

This is exactly what happened with the body of the Lindbergh baby. The word is derived from "Serendip", an old name for Sri Lanka, and the old fairy tale, "The Three Princes of Serendip", in which the trio were always "making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of." It is from this story that the English author Horace Walpole coined the word in a January 28, 1754, letter to Sir Horace Mann about an heraldic discovery in which he wrote that "this discovery, indeed, is almost of that kind which I call Serendipity, a very expressive word." The word "fortunate" (as in "The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident.") does not necessarily imply that the discovery is a "happy" one, however, but it can also be either neutral or negative (sad) as the root word from which "fortunate" is derived ("fortune") includes among its definitions the following: fate, lot, destiny, and chance, all four of which can have neutral or negative connotations as well as "positive" ones.

"Unintentionally" does not affirmatively address the issue of the truck driver's unexpected chance discovery of the body happening when he was clearly not looking for it. By definition, however, "serendipitously" does include these essential factors of the event and therefore was selected not for "emotional" reasons as you suggest, but because it is the most accurate and appropriate word to describe the circumstances under which the baby was found. Using any other less precise term would only serve to pablumize the account and mislead its readers. Avoiding the use of a precise term because a single editor believes that some visitors to an article may be "unfamiliar with it" is both an encyclopedic anathema and a disservice to its readers.

I must say that I find your comment that "While you claim a consensus is reached, to me it seems you've bullied everyone into accepting an emotional word in a work to which you are emotionally attached" completely inappropriate and ill informed. For one thing you should note above that the usage of "serendipitously" was also strongly supported by User:Bzuk, another longtime contributor to this article, and an editor with whom I have often disagreed with on issues of style in WP articles but who fully supports this choice of language. I urge you to familiarize yourself and follow the core WP precept of assuming good faith in the future, especially when offering views on the history of a long standing and mature article to which you have no connection and have never contributed. Centpacrr (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, it was inappropriate. I did not mean to suggest that you are emotionally invested in the content, just in your work. By this I mean you have done so much good for the article that you understandably want to keep your contributions intact. I am certain this particular word is not the right one for the article, but it is becoming clear to me that I won't convince you alone. I will leave it to the community to decide. Stihdjia (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Do the connotations of the word "serendipitously" make it inappropriate in this context? Stihdjia (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So far the only affirmative reason I have seen you offer to not use this word is that you contend the "some readers may be unfamiliar with it." Serendipity (and its derivatives), however, are hardly esoteric (a Google search for "serendipity" returned in excess of 27 million hits) so I don't see how this is a legitimate issue. As you also admit that the word is "technically" correct, with respect I just don't see any basis for your objection to this term other than you personally don't like its use in this context. Centpacrr (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My objections with the word are not its obscurity or syntacticality or that it even was a serendipitous event in some senses. I only mentioned unfamiliarity as a possible explanation for why readers have objected to it as little as they have. However, the word has always had connotations of happiness and pleasure and the definitions provided by you and your supporter(s) are not exhaustive. OED includes these meanings for example. To use it to describe something so grisly as the discovery of a corpse will be unnecessarily inflammatory to some readers. Stihdjia (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The word: seren·en·dip·i·ty (srn-dp-t) can mean:

n. pl. ser·en·dip·i·ties 1. The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident. 2. The fact or occurrence of such discoveries. 3. An instance of making such a discovery. definition In this context, serendipitous is appropriate, however, there are other connotations or dictionary definitions that go further and place it into the context of a "fortunate" or "lucky" discovery, such as examples of the discovery of insulin, post-it notes, and the like. Honestly, as an editor in the "real" world, I would leave it to "author's choice" as it really is almost a non sequitur. So removing myself from the milieu of being a contributor to this article, with the observer's detached view, I can see both points of view, and am decidedly "on the fence." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC).

The word is fully unneccessary, which means it is far better omitted than present. Collect (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The essence of "serendipity" is an unanticipated, unexpected discovery or happening made by chance or "fortune" (i.e. fate, lot, or destiny) of something for which the discoverer was not looking irrespective of whether that discovery was a "happy", neutral, or "sad" event. That is exactly what happened in this instance: Mr. Allen unexpectedly had discovered the body of the Lindbergh baby purely by chance and did so when he was not looking for the infant. That this would not be classified as a "happy" event does not change nature of the way this discovery was made, i.e., serendipitously. Centpacrr (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why you are so adamant the word be used? You just used several alternatives that are nearly synonyms, yet are even more applicable since they don't imply it was a pleasant event. And yes, "serendipitously" does in fact suggest this. Here is all I could get from Oxford's free online dictionaries: serendipity. If you'd like I can drag out my COED and quote you its definition, though it's not on hand ATM. Stihdjia (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Serendipity" has a connotation of both "chance" and "good fortune". Discovering a tot's corpse is generally not thought of as "good fortune" - though it's preferable to the alternative. Thus the phrase "by chance" would be more appropriate in this context than "serendipitous". Rklawton (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wrong word as per Rklawton and others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Concur with Rklawton's explanation. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is a moot point as the word is no longer in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Lindbergh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comments:

1. The lead is poorly structured, consisting of one-sentence paragraphs.
2. Citations are not supposed to be in the lead unless the information is unique.
3. There are several areas of the article that contain uncited information, including a few citation needed tags.
4. Many areas of the article look sloppy with bulleted lists and one-sentence paragraphs.

By looking at the article, I feel it needs some more work, mostly with citations, before it can be considered for GA. Therefore, I will have to fail it. It may be renominated when the above issues are addressed. Dough4872 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

None of these are isurmountable and most require minor edits to fix, how about giving me a couple days to fix them before an instant fail? --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New Georgia Encyclopedia project is underway

The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge ten articles, which I have copied to project space; one of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Charles Lindbergh (which focuses on Lindbergh's associations with Georgia).

Our goal is to get the NGE articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,000 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in accomplishing this. Please note that the original NGE article (linked in the required attribution section of the above article in project space) has images, but NGE is unable to convey those to us at this time, as they are individually licensed by NGE. Also, please note that the NGE would like for us to parallel, to the extent possible, their selection of internal links (where they link to an internal NGE article, they would like for us to also link to our equivalent Wikipedia article). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The NGE article is now fully linked up and ready to merge. bd2412 T 16:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Per this discussion , it seems that we are not going to be using any of the NGE material in this article, as everything other than trivial, highly localized information, is already thoroughly covered. I have informed the NGE, and they understand the situation. bd2412 T 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a case of WP:OWNERSHIP going on here?

Copied from my talk page. Tony (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Um ... why should "fame" be linked? Can you please read WP:OVERLINK. The Lindburgh article is spattered with so much blue, it will ensure that hardly anyone clicks on a useful link. Why are Garden City" AND "Manhatten" AND "New York City" all linked? Why would a read want to go directly to the general ones rather than through the most specific (the first)?

Integral to the story has nothing to do with whether a link should be created. "The" is integral to the story, too. Tony (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but the article is relatively stable, but deals with a series of contentious issues revolving around the Lindbergh mystique including the fleeting nature of fame, of which Lindbergh was one of the world's most visible victims after being cast into the public arena. The inclusion of locales such as Garden City, Manhatten and New York City were obviously linked because there was much confusion between where Lindbergh took off, where he was toasted as a hero and the city in which he later worked, and lived. I have no compunction to have common words remain as links but the article that is in question was very carefully written and researched by a Lindbergh scholar and he has been vociferous to the point of being pointy about the reasoning behind his development of the article. ...and please don't lecture as you did above, it is demeaning especially to someone like yourself (I am using "the water on the duck's back" precept here) who as a long-time Wiki editor should treat others with respect. FWiW, when there are major challenges to the direction of an article, it sometimes comes back to the WP:BRD construct, which is being invoked. I look forward to a lively discourse if you choose. Bzuk (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

(1) The stability of an article has nothing to do with whether it should be improved and, indeed, brought into line with modern wiki-practice as set out in the guidelines. (2) The contentiousness seems to be irrelevant to whether the wikilinking should be diluted with low-value links (I hadn't picked up the contentiousness, such was the narrowness of my pass over ... the broader content is not of close relevance to my goal, which is to improve the linking practice and in turn make it more likely that readers will hit links at all). (3) Could you explain how the fame article is useful, focused, and relevant to an understanding of the topic here? Why not link "public arena" and most other items in the article, to turn the issue upside-down? Could you explain how the New York City article is helpful/relevant to the "confusion" about where L. took off from? What exactly in the article is helpful to the reader? Who would hit that link, diverting from the run of the text? Why do all three locations need to be blued, close to each other, when the reader can't possibly click all at once, and it is most straightforward to access the others through the most specific Garden City? (4) I went straight from a very quick reading of the Signpost article to this one, and was unaware that someone's ego is tied up in it to the extent that other editors are not allowed to come in and copy-edit or tailor the text and formatting to the requirements of WP's guidelines and policy. If there's a bad dose of WP:OWNERSHIP going on, it needs to be nipped in the bud now, I'm afraid. What is your role in supporting this person's possible ownership issue? (5) Is unlinking a few common terms a "major challenge to the direction" of the article"? (6) Why is my text you quote at the top "lecturing" and "demeaning"? Tony (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good morrow, Tony! I have no aversion to unlinking many of the overly wrought items in the aforementioned article. In fact, I essentially agree with you that the article does need a review or revision and as is wont, there are many other blue links that should be addressed. What I considered was a "drive-by" approach that did not shout out careful consideration. When I looked at the lede passages, and noted that Lindbergh had originally been linked to a number of important elements of his character and achievements and then looked at what was left after your changes, it appeared that the edits were not well-considered. As to Bruce's aversion to changes to the article, that's merely a remnant of his considerable work and effort and I have had many duels about phraseology, formatting and the like on articles in which he took a particular interest. Labeling his commitment to quality research as ownership is a bit harsh, as is the tone and tenor of the initial comment that you expressed about my concerns, e.g. "Can you please read..." which to my sensibilities, appears demeaning. Knowing that you are Frank as well as Tony (in the sense of the arcane definition of "marked by an elegant or exclusive manner or quality..."), I appreciate that you saw need to make changes and in retrospect, other wikilinks such as "Gallons, gasoline, hangar" should be consigned to the dustbin. Nevertheless, before reverting your first "pass", I did a count and assessment of the wikilinks and found that locations were predominantly linked, with names of individuals next in line. The number and instances of commonplace words were few, and that the repeating of links was also limited. I did see Medal of Honor linked three times, which should be reduced but the first instance of a wikilink appearing in the infobox and followed by a link in the body is not excessive. Where San Diego should appear rather than San Diego, California is probably another example where change can occur. As to some of the other links, fuselage seemed iffy but when the context of the passage referred to souvenir hunters tearing the fabric material off the Spirit of St. Louis then identifying the aircraft section may be necessary. The article is on my watchlist because it is a continual troll magnet in which vandals take relish in dumping on Lindbergh. Not to say that our "hero" is overly pristine but the amount of historical revisionism attempted led to many challenges and the use of protection shields. The article has withstood many attacks and over the last while, become more "stable" in that most of the questionable facets of the Lindbergh saga have been resolved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

"Please read X" is demeaning? Nooooo. I'll return to do the job properly when I get a chance. Tony (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article

In the Infobox Person (on the right at the beginning of the article) it lists three women by whom he had children: Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Brigitte Hesshaimer, and Marietta Hesshaimer.

In the section Children from other relationships is lists "Valdenka" as the mother of two more children, with birht dates but no children's names. Is this section correct? Were there children by four women not three? Is there any more information about the "East Prussian aristocrat Valeska, who was Lindbergh's private secretary in Europe"? Where was she born? What kind of aristocrat? How often did Lindbergh meet with her? How long did she work for him? What are the names of the children? If they exist can they be listed in the Infobox Person?

Nick Beeson (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jon Lindbergh

Since Jon Lindbergh does not yet have his own article, the Wikipedia:Notability guideline seems to suggest putting verifiable information about him -- such as the following -- in the "more general" Charles Lindbergh article:

Jon Lindbergh, son of Charles Lindbergh, set a deep diving record of 432 feet in 1964, and helped search for the lost hydrogen bomb from the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash.

Social acceptance

I've removed two examples. Roosevelt came from a self-published source. The source cites other, presumably published sources, so maybe we could use one of those. But - Roosevelt died before yeas before Lindbergh's opinions reached public awareness. Likewise, Patton's anti-communist views didn't make an impact until long afterwards. So basically, if we want to provide examples of social acceptance of Lindbergh's views, then let's use his popular contemporaries to illustrate the point. Rklawton (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lindbergh's Son

Shouldn't Lindbergh's son's name technically be, "Charles Austin Lindbergh III", since he was named after his father and his son was named after him? Renddslow (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lindbergh Resigned From Air Corps When?

The article states that Lindbergh resigned from the Army Air Corps in 1939, but some sources online claim it was a year later, in response to frictions with the FDR Administration.

Anybody got the straight scoop? I would consider the resignation in 1939 to be more logical, he could have hardly gone public in opposition to the government while retaining his military rank. BTW, on probing into this matter, I was a bit shocked to find out how much white supremacist websites see Lindbergh as one of their own ... and since such folk tell a lot of tall tales, it tends to make the facts about Lindbergh even harder to sort out. Not that there's any doubt he was a racist. MrG 63.227.58.250 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lindbergh resigned from the USAAF on April 28, 1941. I have corrected the article and added a reference to the New York TIMES front page story on the resignation published on April 29, 1941. Centpacrr (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

LIndbergh Citations

The article suggests that at a House hearing, CAL suggested that America sign a neutrality pact with the Reich(!) I haven't been able to trace that remark down in the limited sources I have -- anybody got a validation on it?

Also ... there's a story that in one speech Lindbergh said FDR was a "worse warmonger than Hitler", which would have made FDR's calling him a "Copperhead" rather more just. Anybody got a validation on the "warmonger" remark? CAL is a controversial figure and so sorting out the stories about him is tricky. MrG 63.227.58.250 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Centpacrr (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In the "Thoughts on race and racism" section Lindbergh is quoted as follows: "He believed that 'in America they can be blended to form the greatest genius of all.'[citation needed]"

I found the source here: Appeal for Isolation LET US LOOK TO OUR OWN DEFENSE By COL. CHARLES A. LINDBERGH, Famous Aviator Delivered over radio from Washington, D. C., September 15, 1939 http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/1939-09-15a.html

I'm too lazy to learn how to do a footnote so I'll just drop off the info here and leave the rest to someone else. 76.102.126.108 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of External Link to Find-A-Grave

In the External Links section, I added a link to Charles Lindbergh at Find-A-Grave. Within a few minutes of adding this link, it was reverted by Binksternet. Most celebrity biographies on Wikipedia have links to Find-A-Grave, and I can think of no reason for this edit to be reverted.

One of the problems with Wikipedia is the fact that too many chefs can spoil the soup.

Anthony22 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this link which seems perfectly appropriate and encyclopedic, and conforms to similar links found on many, many other WP biographical articles. The link provides accurate and relevant information. Centpacrr (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Disregard above as I see the reason it was apparently removed is that it was already included in the External Link list (second from top) so the link was in fact deleted because it was a duplicate. Sorry, my bad. Centpacrr (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

When I added Charles Lindberg at Find A Grave, I didn't see the link to Find A Grave on the right edge of Line 2.

Anthony22 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI there has been a vigorous movement to rid Wikipedia of all links to Find a grave so don't be too surprised if it disappears. --Kumioko (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the article and why it isn't B class

The article is basically well written, the english and prose are near perfect, the images are well placed and well chosen. The problems are mostly in regards to referencing. There are many facts, statements and quotes that are unreferenced, several sources are used that appear to be basically a fan site for Lindburgh and would probably stop it from getting higher than B class so should be replaced. There are also several places were weasal words are used (ie, according to, as stated by, etc) and these should be replaced according to the WP:MOS. I placed several citation needed tags in some obvious areas but there are others as well. All quotes should have a citation and I know I didn't tag all those. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed this article seems to be prone to vandalism (mostly by IP's) and I recommend asking that it be set so that only established users can edit it. That should cut down on the vandals. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the number of tags seems excessive, why not simply put on a improve ref tag. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC).

I could have but I wanted to be more specific in were the problems are. I think the the article is close to GA and would like to see it get there. I also figured since you and a couple of other editors have done a lot of work on the article it would be easier to identify them specifically. --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Since my citation needed tags were reverted I added a refimprove tag instead. I had thuoght that it woudl be easier to not have to dig through the article for the problems. It doesn't matter how many references that article already has, the information needs to be sourced. Especially quotes and facts. If you can't find a source for the statement or the quote then the information should be removed (and added to the talk page perhaps). For what its worth, if anyone wants to add these citations, here is a link to the version were I added the citation needed tags to some of the areas that need to be cited. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point and I will go back to your version. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I would be willing to assist in fixing these citations if the help is wanted. I only say that because in the past whenever I have changed something on this article it usually gets reverted. --Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have met my good fiend, Bruce. FWiW, did I spell "friend" correctly? LOL. Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes perhaps. Do you mind if I request this article be set so that only established users can edit it. It certainly won't affect anyone that is trying to help the article and will cut down and what appear to be at least daily vandalisms. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it doesn't meet criteria B1. You've done a great job. Its well written. It just doesn't have the necessary sources. I downgraded it to C. Ill give you that but it needs sources for B class. There is no concensus required its a plain simple obvious requirement. --Kumioko (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a request here for the article to be semi protected to try and slow some of the IP vandalism that seems to be hitting the articel on a regular basis. ---Kumioko (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Slow IP vandalism doesn't usually merit protection. Rarely, an IP editor such as this one makes a useful change to the article.

I am in complete agreement that this article could use a sharp trimming of its less reliable sources. There are so many good sources, great ones even, that we do not need the various self-pubs and no-author webpages. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess thats ok. The pages seems to get more than a little interest by the vandals but if you think its best to leave it I guess thats ok. I do think that the main IP's doing meaningful edits are of the main contributors to the article though but thats just a guess. --Kumioko (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now added all the requested source references to the 17 sections/sub-sections of the article for which I have had any responsibility for developing and writing over the past several years. Centpacrr (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It Does Qualify as a Start Class Big Roger (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Try again. Centpacrr (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Refs added. Centpacrr (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole section on children of other relationships should be eliminated since it appears as nothing more than scurrilous gossip. Even if true, the information adds nothing and the behavior described is totally out of character for the man. Even the supposed DNA "evidence" is likely fabricated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WicK1J (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Any your RS for the DNA evidence being likely fabricated is ... ? 19:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote box displaying incorrectly?

I've never edited anything here before (beyond a few grammatical errors), but I thought I'd bring this up for someone more knowledgeable than myself to fix. The Quote box with the quote from "WE" (beginning "Always there was some new experience") is showing up in the middle of a sentence in the "Air Mail pioneer and advocate" section instead of in the "Early aviation career" section where, as far as I can tell, it should be. I couldn't decipher the Edit page well enough to see what was wrong; it looked like it was in the right place there. Thanks! 66.183.91.212 (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the issue you are having is the result of your browser somehow misinterpreting the page's html code. I added the quote box to this article several years ago and it has always appeared corrrectly for me with both Firefox and Safari. (See here for how it looks when correctly displayed by the browser.) Centpacrr (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be a bit more info here...

Excuse me, but I noticed the article didn't mention what college(s) he went to. It mentions the high school he went to, but then it skips to his aviation career. I already know he went to the University of Wisconsin, but I don't know which one. Having this information in the article would help me greatly, for I have an assignment do soon and need the information. 69.228.87.122 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Two years after graduating from Little Falls High School in Minnesota Lindbergh enrolled in the College of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin at Madison but dropped out in the middle of his sophomore year. He left Madison by motorcycle in March, 1922, for Lincoln, NE, where he enrolled the next month as a flying student with the Nebraska Aircraft Corporation. Centpacrr (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Charges of racism

Recently, mention of a controversy dealing with Charles Lindbergh being accused of racism and antisemitism were deleted. There must be plentiful evidence of this issue in sources in order to discuss here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

It seems to me that the way this material was inserted (by an anonymous IP user with no previous edits on WP) it is clearly POV and not supported by the cited sources, but life is too short to get into another endless debate so I will leave this discussion to others. Centpacrr (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it POV when biographers Scott Berg and Joyce Milton have heavily referenced the charges of antisemitism and racism? FWiW, each account deals with Lindbergh's reactions to the charges and that he did not understand how the claims of antisemitism became entrenched with the result that he and his wife had become social pariahs in the 1940s. Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Fine, if that's the case then source and cite it. I have no problem with that as long as it is supported. Centpacrr (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The opening sentence of a biography isn't the right place for this. I'm not saying this info shouldn't be included, but the first sentence should simply identify who the subject is and the primary reason for their notability. His views on race/anti-semitism should be covered in proportion to its prominence, but not in the first sentence. Spellcast (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary charges of racism (etc) and their impact on his life along with Lindbergh's responses are relevant to his biography and should be included here. This is the place to report these facts. This is not, however, the place for us to rationalize or explain away this aspect of his life decades after the fact. Rklawton (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Fleeing"

The article says the kidnapping led to the Lindbergh family "fleeing the United States". I changed "fleeing" to "leaving". An editor reverted my change, seemingly bacause Lindbergh himself said he was "fleeing". It seems to me to be utter nonsense that we must use that exact word-even if a better choice exists-solely because that was the word Lindbergh used. "Fleeing" implies escape. And while the Lindbergh family was, in a sense escaping, the term seems misleading as it's used here. I'm curious as to what others think about this. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh ("CAL") and his family fled the United States for Europe in the early morning hours December 22, 1935, to escape from and thus protect themselves from continuous hounding by the news media and other threats to their safety after the kidnapping and murder of the infant Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., the Hauptman trial, and other overt invasions of CAL's and his family's privacy. "Fleeing" the country is exactly how CAL later described this event in his writings as well as how it was referred to in news accounts at the time. For instance the January 6, 1936, TIME Magazine story "The Press: Hero & Herod" said "News of the Lindbergh flight broke in the final Monday edition of the New York Times, on the streets at 4 a.m. ...", "The Lindberghs had secretly obtained passports in Washington a week in advance, slipped away from the Morrow home in Englewood, N. J. with farewells only to the immediate family.", and "Editorial sentiment was overwhelmingly but not unanimously with the fleeing Lindberghs."

The Lindberghs were not just "leaving" the United States, they were literally "fleeing" (i.e. "escaping" from) the country as well because CAL felt that continuing to reside in the US had become untenable. Thus using the word "fleeing" in the introduction to the Charles Lindbergh article was neither "a poor choice of words" nor was it "foolishness", but is instead an accurate description of exactly what happened "At 2:53 a. m. on Sunday, Dec. 22, [when] Charles Augustus Lindbergh, with his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh and their 3-year-old son Jon, sailed furtively out of New York Harbor toward Europe aboard the S.S. American Importer" as the family fled the United States to live in Europe for the next six years. That is how the ultimate primary source -- CAL himself -- saw what he was doing so it would be "utter nonsense" (as well as patently misleading and unsourced editorializing) to describe in his WP article what he and his family did using any word other than "fleeing". Centpacrr (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they weren't "literally escaping". They were leaving because, as you say, Lindbergh felt life here had become untenable. But looking at what a horrid mess this article is, this issue seems rather trivial. Please do be more careful when you revert, as you removed a perfectly valid copy-edit with your rollback. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The revert and restoration of the term "fleeing" was correct, done with great care, and is based on both the primary (CAL) and contemporary published sources which support that exact term. Substituting the less specific and broader term such as "leaving" in place of the one used both by the subject of the article himself to describe his own actions, as well as contemporary published sources such as the above cited TIME magazine article, is both misleading and unsupported editorializing as opposed to being "a perfectly valid copy-edit". Your are, of course, free to personally consider the article a "horrid mess" (although you have provided no basis whatsoever for that), however counterproductively pablumizing an article's language by substituting a broader term in place of a more specific, properly sourced, and fully supported one is not how WP works. You might find it useful to review WP:SOURCES if you are unclear about this. Centpacrr (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It obviously wasn't done with any care because as I said, you removed a perfectly valid copy-edit along with your revert. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I gather from your continued insistence that your "perfectly valid copy-edit" should be retained in the light of the multiple reliable sources cited to the contrary which support "fleeing" as what the Lindbergh family did (see immediately below as well as the footnotes in the article) appears to confirm that you still either do not understand how WP:SOURCES works on WP or that you simply reject that as being the Project's well established modus operandi for editing. In either event res ipsa loquitur. An editor's contention that he or she would have chosen a different term to describe an object or event then that reflected in the source(s) does not mean that the editor's personal after the fact preference (in this case made three-quarters of a century later) should trump what is cited in the original source material. That has never been the case with WP or any other encyclopedia. Centpacrr (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my "perfectly valid copy-edit" should have been retained from the start, and you are obviously still missing my point there. I made two edits to the article. The first was the one you didn't like. The second was the addition of a simple comma (a perfectly valid copy-edit). When you reverted, you also removed my copy-edit. That is what I have been trying to explain this entire time that you have continued to argue about the word "fleeing". I simply asked that you use more care with rollbacks. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If I inadvertently reverted a comma then why didn't you just put it back in? The only issue you raised by starting this discussion, however, has had to do with the term "fleeing" which is also the title you gave the section. This is the first time that you have now mentioned a "comma" as being the "copy edit" when all you had ever discussed previously was the word choice. I responded to the issue you specifically raised, but I am not a mind reader when it comes to responding to an issue that you did not previously mention. Centpacrr (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking now at the "comma" edit in the page's history I find that it was actually an unnecessary addition. The issue is now also moot, however, as the sentence has since been expanded and split so that where you placed the comma is now the end of the sentence with a period. Centpacrr (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: I have added five specific citations to the intro and within the article which support both the use of the correct term "fleeing" as well as that the Lindbergh family had been "driven into voluntary exile" in Europe. They are the NY Times front page stories of Dec 23 & Dec 24, 1935, by that paper's aviation editor, Lauren "Deac" Lyman, reporting for which he also won the 1936 Pulitzer Prize; the TIME Magazine article "The Press: Hero & Herod" published on January 6, 1936; the Universal Newsreel clip: "The Lindberghs Fleeing From U.S. Land in England" January 8, 1936; and to page 194 of the 1993 book "Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax" by Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier which reads "In fact, Charles Lindbergh fled the country. It is no coincidence that his escape from the United States occurred just before Hauptmann's scheduled execution, and at a time when Governor Hoffman's investigation into the evidence was bringing greater public scrutiny. Charles Lindbergh did not want to be around during that scrutiny." Centpacrr (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical overkill is not the same as "fact." They "fled" in the same sense that people "flee" New York City - they were not in fear of arrest or imprisonment, but in annoyance at the press in the US after their family tragedy. As this I doubt would be in dispute, I suggest that "left" is the proper verb, or "fled the newspaper harassment" if one wishes to be more specific. In later years, while living in Darien, CT, the family grounds were protected by the local police, although Mr. Lindbergh was known to frequent local libraries. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The label of "annoyance" is far from the fact that the Lindberghs were literally hounded by media and chose to "flee" from the constant harassment and undue prying by the curious, which I believe is the point you are making. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC).

Close enough. At no point was Lindbergh "anti-American" or the like - he just was fed up with the tabloid press, and I can not really blame him for that. Collect (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lindberghs were more than "fed up" with the press, they also feared for the physical safety of their then three year old second son, Jon, which led to their decision to secretly flee to Europe as the only passengers on the freighter S.S. American Importer on which they sailed from New York in the middle of the night. Centpacrr (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And the benefit to the reader? "Flee" contains a connotation a bit removed from the facts of his harassment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The contemporary published sources cited above -- and Lindbergh himself -- described what the family was doing as "fleeing". The "benefit to the reader" is to accurately reflect how the public, press, the principals, and later historians all viewed and described the event. Centpacrr (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas - not all sources use "flee" as is shown by [1], [2] (which simply says "move abroad"), [3] has "took up residence in England ...", [4] "moved to England" and so on. In fact, "flee" seems remarkably absent from those books on his life! So off to the New York Times: [5] "The Lindberghs left the United States in December, 1935, and arrived in England on the last day of the year. They remained there for two and one-half years" Nope no "flee". [6] "Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh has given up residence in the United States and is on his way " No flee circus here either.

And of course [7] from the New York Times:

After the trial, the Lindberghs tried to go on living in the United States, but there were threats on the life of their second child, a son named Jon, who was born on Aug. 16, 1932, and other harassments, largely from cranks and aggressive reporters. Late in 1935 the Lindberghs moved to England to seek escape from what Lindbergh called the tremendous public hysteria that surrounded him in the United States. On May 12, 1937, their third child, a boy named Land was born in a London nursing home, where Mrs. Lindbergh had registered under an assumed name.

Nope - no "flee" in the New York Times. So much for that absurd and surreal claim that it was generally called "flee." Collect (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind the distinction between "fleeing the United States" and fleeing the media. I absolutely agree the Lindberghs fled media harassment, but they did not "flee" the US. They simply left it. Stihdjia (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The evidence to that is in the contrary. In Lindbergh's own words to Deac Lyman he said that "Americans are a primitive people. Our moral standards are low. We do not have discipline.” (Butterfield, Roger. “Lindbergh: A Stubborn Young Man of Strange Ideas Becomes the Leader of the Wartime Opposition, “ Life, Aug. 11, 1941) and that "Americans exhibit a morbid curiosity over crimes and murder trials, lack respect for law and the rights of others" and that he went into exile in England to "seek a safe, secluded residence away from the tremendous public hysteria that surrounded him in America." (Charles Lindbergh obituary, The New York Times, August 27, 1974, p. 18). He was not "fleeing" only the media, but the country as well. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, sir. I'm sorry to be rude but that evidence does not at all support the use of the word "fled" in this sentence. In fact, I believe it supports my case here: "Americans are a primitive people. Our moral standards... We do not have discipline..." and "away from the tremendous public hysteria..." Mr. Lindbergh clearly still considered himself an American, and was specifically fleeing hysteria. In my understanding he did not renounce his citizenship or make any statement to support the idea that he feared the United States. He even tried to fight for them in WWII. Once again I thank you for your expert additions to the article, but I find much of your wording to be lacking in neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Stihdjia (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The words "fleeing", "fled" and "flight" are not mine but these are the words used in the contemporary sources (see below) published at the time of the events. Lindbergh was not giving up his citizenship (nor did I ever say or imply that he did), and he did indeed return three years later when circumstances in the country had changed. But at the time he went into self exile in Europe in December, 1935, he was most definitely being perceived by the public (and described by the press) as "fleeing" to Europe because he felt that he and his family could not live in peace and safety in the United States as circumstances were for him, his wife, and his son at that time. To ignore those facts would constitute both a misrepresentation of what happened as supported by the sources cited (see below), and would thus be the essence of being unencyclopedic. That the Lindberghs "fled" to Europe is not a POV on my part, but is a verified accounting of why he surreptitiously took his family to Europe in December, 1935, and how that event was perceived by the public and press both at time as well as in books about Lindbergh published in the years since. Centpacrr (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice if you read my comments that I never claimed Lindbergh and family didn't flee. Of course they fled. I said they did not flee the US. That certain words are used in legitimate sources does not permit their use in any context throughout the article. Perhaps I should further clarify my concerns. The transitive verb "flee" in the article lead takes the object "the United States." This implies the Lindbergh family was not only afraid of circumstances in the United States, but the entity itself.

It is my understanding that you are a prominent expert on Charles Lindbergh, but this does not give you control of editorial changes. Nor does it give you the right to assume my intentions and reasoning behind them. Changes of this type, I'd like to add, are often best made by those who are detached from the subject matter. Stihdjia (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC), updated 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the text to read fled "to Europe" which I find to be equally true and should assuage whatever your concerns are. I was not trying to "assume your intentions", just to respond to the comment you made as I understood it. I was also not making "editorial changes" to the article, I was defending material that I had contributed in the first place several years ago which was based on the sources that I cited in it. I am puzzled, however, by your apparent contention that editors with extensive knowledge and experience in a particular subject should avoid contributing to articles on that subject and leave that instead to those with no background in the field. No encyclopedia in the world works like that. Centpacrr (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize you were not making editorial changes, but you seem to be disallowing all of them by other editors. I am frustrated, because though you are clearly an expert on its content, you are not letting anyone make any changes to the presentation of the article without your strict approval. Every change I attempt to make is met with resistance that ignores my actual concerns and tries to answer what you believe I have misunderstood. I applaud your devotion but must insist that I have a very strong understanding of the mechanics of language. I for one am puzzled by your apparent contention that the author of any piece of written work is also the one best equipped to review and critique it. Stihdjia (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here has to do with making changes to articles that a) are not supported by reliable sources, and b) removing material that is supported by reliable sources. I have a strong understanding of the mechanics of language as well having been a professional researcher and writer for more than 40 years with many hundreds of articles and seven published books to my credit on a variety of non-fiction and historical subjects. When what I have contributed here is challenged by another editor I am perfectly willing to defend my work and provide evidence and sources to back up my position as i have done in both this case and the earlier one about the use of the word "serendipitiosly". I am also perfectly willing to have my mind changed and be proved wrong, but that requires the challenger to fully support his or her position with verifiable and reliable evidence. Unless and until that happens, you can expect me -- and I would expect you and any other editor as well -- to be unwilling to accept unsupported changes for changes sake. Just saying that "I am convinced that I am right and you are wrong" is never going to cut it.

Editing is indeed a collaborative process, but you need to make a convincing case first before making changes that materially alter the meaning of an article. This is especially true when a challenge is made by an editor who chooses to remain completely anonymous and provides no information to the community about him or herself to help one judge the challenger's credibility, bono fides, or where he or she might be "coming from". This is the reason I created (and constantly update) an extensive userpage for myself as a courtesy to the WP community so anyone who wishes to consult it to help them judge my contributions is free to do so. Centpacrr (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Making changes that alter the meaning is above all what I am trying to avoid, since I am not familiar with the sources. I would never remove any factual information based on reliable sources, nor would add facts that I could not support. I have done neither of these and wouldn't even attempt it on this article since the factual information seems to be complete and true. My criticisms have been on wording alone. I have not changed any sourced quotes so I do not understand why you are citing the sources. Since the few sentences I've changed are not direct quotes, but general article narrative, they appear to be statements made by all of "Wikipedia." The talk page shows clearly that more of Wikipedia than yourself objects to some small parts, and I've restricted myself mostly to changes that have long been proposed but lost steam after they were fervently, though unconvincingly, denied. Also I can strongly support both that the use of "serendipitously" is not necessary where it had previously been included, and that "fleeing the United States" is not the best word choice where the Lindberghs are not literally fleeing the United States, only leaving to escape something in the United States, especially since they were already described as being "in exile". One must flee to be in exile, but to say they fled the US could easily be inferred to mean they were seeking physical and political asylum. You cannot support these word choices either, only that similar wording was used in contemporary sources. I don't think it's too much too hope for a small "Good call, that was a little awkward and now I see why..." Stihdjia (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Edit: I happened to be making a profile while we typed our last round of comments and feel I should note here that I resent your suggestion that having a profile somehow makes you more trustworthy than IP editors or those with redlink user names. Proposed edits should be judged on the validity of the changes alone and not by any perceived gravity of the editor.Stihdjia (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Fleeing Lindberghs"

All three of the reliable sources cited refer to and support that the Lindberghs were viewed as "fleeing" (or having "fled") the United States because, among other things, they felt that remaining put their son Jon was in danger when they sailed from New York for Liverpool, England on December 22, 1935 as the only three passengers on board the freighter S.S. American Importer".

• The January 6, and January 13, 1936, TIME Magazine articles "The Press: Hero & Herod" and "The Press: Hero & Herod (Pt 2)" include the following statements on this issue:

"At 2:53 a. m. on Sunday, Dec. 22, Charles Augustus Lindbergh, with his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh and their 3-year-old son Jon, sailed furtively out of New York Harbor toward Europe aboard the S. S. American Importer." ...

"News of the Lindbergh flight broke in the final Monday edition of the New York Times, on the streets at 4 a. m. The New York American, morning Hearst paper, cribbed the Times' copyright story, slapped it on the front page of an extra edition. The rest of Manhattan's morning newspapers were left sitting on their hands. Since Colonel Lindbergh had offered no public explanation of his departure, and radiograms sent to him on the American Importer were returned with the notation "Addressee not aboard," the Times' story remained the scripture on which the week's exegesis was built." ...

"International News Service was led to believe that the Lindberghs had fled simply to escape the approaching tumult over Murderer Hauptmann's execution scheduled for this month." ....

"Quitter? Coward? Editorial sentiment was overwhelmingly but not unanimously with the fleeing Lindberghs." ...

"Having been convulsed by the flight of Hero Charles Augustus Lindbergh's family from the Herods of U. S. lawlessness and yellow journalism, U. S. editors, who spent last fortnight proclaiming their country's inferiority to Great Britain in manners and morals (TIME. Jan. 6), maintained almost unanimous silence last week as they watched the Lindberghs run to ground like rabbits by the British Press."

(NOTE: While these TIME articles are not individually signed (no TIME articles are), the names of the editors and reporters responsible for them are included in the magazine's masthead and TIME has always been accepted by Wikipedia as a "reliable source" for articles.)

• The Universal Newsreel story reported by Graham McNamee showing the arrival of the Lindberghs in England is entitled:

"The Lindberghs Fleeing From U.S. Land in England".

• The 1993 book "Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax" by Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier reads at page 194:

"In fact, Charles Lindbergh fled the country. It is no coincidence that his escape from the United States occurred just before Hauptmann's scheduled execution, and at a time when Governor Hoffman's investigation into the evidence was bringing greater public scrutiny. Charles Lindbergh did not want to be around during that scrutiny."

Thus use of the quote "fleeing Lindbergh's" is both supported and appropriate under WP guidelines. Centpacrr (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To use the term "fleeing Lindberghs" rationally requires more than your leap from "sailed furtively" to "fleeing", more than your leap from any of the other blatant non-uses uses of the term! In fact, your sources show clearly that "fleeing Lindberghs was not only not used as a common term, but that it is not remotely correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read beyond the first quotation? The multiple sources cited (TIME Magazine, International News Service, Universal Newsreel, the book "Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax") use the terms "Lindbergh flight", "Lindberghs had fled", "Editorial sentiment was overwhelmingly but not unanimously with the fleeing Lindberghs", "the flight of Hero Charles Augustus Lindbergh's family", "The Lindberghs Fleeing From U.S. Land in England", and "In fact, Charles Lindbergh fled the country." Please tell me then just exactly what do you not understand about the multiple uses of the terms "flight", "fled", and "fleeing" as they relate to the Lindberghs' flight to England? On what basis do you claim that these multiple contemporary usages of the terms somehow support your remarkable claim that their usages constitute "blatant non-use" and thus are "not remotely correct"?

With respect, sir, your comment above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and blatantly ignores the multiple contemporary uses of the term as well as its inclusion in later historical accounts. The reason you gave earlier for not thinking the term should be included in the article is that it was "not used in any of the sources" which I have now demonstrated it clearly was in at least four reliable sources. What then is your reason now as the one you state above is nonsense? Centpacrr (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, enough of this hilarious banter, recall this entire exchange is over a "single" word?! FWiW, not much as comments go? (meaning my comment, of course). Bzuk (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is over a single word, but that word is an important fact describing the nature of Lindbergh's going into voluntary exile in Europe and how that highly controversial action was viewed at the time by the press and public. (Remember this was a front page story for weeks at the time and even earned the New York Times a Pulitzer Prize for its extensive reporting of the event.) Beyond that , however, it is also a matter of the principle relating to using reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. An editor questioned that I had used a single source (TIME) so I added two more which all support the use of the word. (See the multiple quotations for the sources above.) The complaining editor, however, now makes the unsupported claim that they are "blatant non-uses" despite the obvious fact that the word "fleeing" (as well as "fled" and "flight") clearly appear in the cited sources. Removing the reference to the fact that Lindbergh was seen to be "fleeing" because of his concern about the safety of his son, wife, and himself if he remained in the United States as opposed to just saying that he "left" the country materially misrepresents an important historical fact and thus diminishes the article's accuracy by pablumizing the facts. That is the point that I am making here. Centpacrr (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The word is not sourced , hence is not a valid claim. Wikipedia has policies about what we can ascribe as a claim, and this goes beyond what is allowed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you possibly say that the word is "not sourced" when I have provided multiple sources that use it? What "policies about what we can ascribe as a claim, and this goes beyond what is allowed" are you claiming support your position, and how specifically does this usage "go beyond what is allowed". Just saying you think it is "not sourced" doesn't make it so. If that is your position then you are obligated to support it (as I have gone to great lengths to support mine) and then achieve the consensus of the community that either you are correct or I am. So far you have provided nothing to support you claim other than just making it. Centpacrr (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mainly because using a non-neutral term where most sources use a neutral term violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. The number of sources which use the neutral "lefft" is huge compared with the single source for "fleeing" and your apparent belief that "flight" and "sailed" are the identical word to "fleeing" which they are not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You have now cited only one source (albeit only in the edit summary) -- The New York Times. Apparently, however, you are unaware of the close personal relationship between Lindbergh and the author of that paper's stories, Times' aviation writer Lauren "Deac" Lyman, which went back to 1927 when Lyman befriended a then unknown Lindbergh. (Lindbergh also had a long standing business relationship with the Times going back to his writing daily dispatches for the paper during his long "Latin American Tour" with the Spirit of St Louis in the winter of 1927-28.) Lyman was the only member of the press whom Lindbergh told about his decision to go into self exile in Europe, and he did so because he knew that Lyman would paint his actions in terms most favorable to his friend and, with Lindbergh deliberately "unavailable at sea" for more than a week, that this "spin" would initially be repeated by other papers that would pick up the Lyman's NYT stories reprinted from that paper's news service. This relationship and the tone of the resulting early accounts based on it are addressed in detail in the cited TIME Magazine article on the issue of press coverage published on January 6th. ("Since Colonel Lindbergh had offered no public explanation of his departure, and radiograms sent to him on the American Importer were returned with the notation "Addressee not aboard," the Times' story remained the scripture on which the week's exegesis was built. It was written by bespectacled Lauren D. ("Deac") Lyman, who as the Times' aviation editor befriended obscure young Aviator Lindbergh before his flight to Paris in 1927. Throughout the week Reporter Lyman stoutly refused to reveal the source of his scoop. But Colonel Lindbergh's hatred of certain sensational newspapers, and his corresponding affection for the courteous Times, have long been well-known. ... In keeping with the Times' policy of protecting Hero Lindbergh's privacy, Reporter Lyman weakened his otherwise first-rate scoop by failing to disclose the time and place of the Lindberghs' sailing, their ship's name, their exact destination.") As Lindbergh's real intentions became known -- his decision to live in exile in Europe -- it then became clear that this was not just a vacation abroad but that Lindbergh had "fled" the country to protect himself and his family from dangers that he felt they were being exposed to in the United States and that he would be living in Europe indefinitely. The Times' stories were therefore, in fact, deliberately misleading and helped to disguise Lindbergh's true motives and intentions which did not become clear to the media and public until after he arrived in England more than a week later and are thus an unreliable source on the point of whether or not the Lindberghs were "fleeing" from the United States or had just "left.".

Aside from the Times, you have again failed to provide any citations or sources that support your claim that "the number of sources which use the neutral "left" is huge compared with the single source for "fleeing"." (You have again also misrepresented the number of sources that I have provided which is FOUR, not one.) You have also claimed that I apparently believe that "flight" and "sailed" are the identical word to "fleeing" when I have made no such claim. Sailed only describes the mode of transportation he used (a ship), nothing more. (The word I was emphasizing with "sailed" was "furtively".) The term "flight", however, is the noun that describes the event associated with the adjective "fleeing" and verb "fled".

The reason it is important to include "fleeing" is that leaving it out materially misrepresents an important historical fact and thus diminishes the article's accuracy by pablumizing the facts. Centpacrr (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW you will not accept anything less than the WP:TRUTH? Sorry - that is not how WP:CONSENSUS works. Saying they left because of the tabloids is reasonable, saying they were "fleeing the US" is not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not I who said that they were "fleeing the US", it is what is in the reliable sources that are cited that did. You have still failed to provide any sources or evidence at all that refutes that. Centpacrr (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, asserting thet the New York Times was "del;iberately misleading" in Anne Morrow Lindbergh's obit is "incroyable". Collect (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. What was misleading (by the omission of facts) in the Times was Deac Lyman's account of the Lindbergh self exile story published in 1935. I have made no comment at all about Mrs. Lindbergh's obituary in the Times published 66 years later in 2001, nor have I ever read it. Centpacrr (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Then read it. I gave it at least once as a source - and yo will have to accept that it is NPOV I would trust. Collect (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that a 4,300 word obituary published 66 years after the Lindberghs' self exile written by somebody who was not even born in 1935 and that includes exactly one 25-word sentence about the subject is your justification to ignore as unreliable multiple extensive contemporary published accounts of the event that report that both the press and public perception at the time was that the Lindberghs had "fled" to Europe? With respect, this 2001 obituary has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the issue of how the Lindberghs' manner of going into exile was understood when it happened in 1935 by the public, journalists, and later by historians. Centpacrr (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In Lindbergh's own words to Deac Lyman he said that "Americans are a primitive people. Our moral standards are low. We do not have discipline.” (Butterfield, Roger. “Lindbergh: A Stubborn Young Man of Strange Ideas Becomes the Leader of the Wartime Opposition, “ Life, Aug. 11, 1941) and that "Americans exhibit a morbid curiosity over crimes and murder trials, lack respect for law and the rights of others" and that he went into exile in England to "seek a safe, secluded residence away from the tremendous public hysteria that surrounded him in America." (Charles Lindbergh obituary, The New York Times, August 27, 1974, p. 18). He was not "fleeing" only the media, but the country as well. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

1. You are the first person on Wikipedia I have ever seen to claim that the NYT continued articles over many years which never used "fleeing" are not RS~ 2. Obits are specifically heavily fact-checked, making your assertion even odder. 3. Your quote from Lindbergh does not support "fleeing." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The quotes from Lindbergh show that he was not fleeing just the press, but also "the tremendous public hysteria that surrounded him in America." He felt that remaining in the country had become untenable for himself and his family and thus "fled" as is supported in the multiple sources I supplied which you continue to ignore. You seem to feel that if that word in not used in the Times (with which Lindbergh had a long standing business relationship and a personal relationship with writer Deac Lyman), that the fact that it appears in multiple other publications is bogus. (See for instance here.) Centpacrr (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) When one is reduced to using a newsreel headline for a poor word choice, one has lost the fight totally, and that is your current position. Cheers. BTW, you are rapidly reaching the limits of tendentiousness beyond which one ought not to venture. Collect (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The terms "fleeing", "fled" and "flight" were also used throughout the several January, 1936 TIME Magazine articles cited as well as in the 1993 book on the Lindbergh kidnapping which I also provided as a source (see above). Are you choosing to reject those as reliable sources as well? I have never said that the NTY is not a reliable source and I have used it many times myself (including in this article), but it is also not the only source. Just because the NYT did not use a particular word in its coverage does not mean the use of that word in many other equally reliable sources has to be ignored. What is "tendentious" here then is actually your puzzling abject refusal to acknowledge let alone accept anything other than the New York Times (a publication with which, as noted above, Lindbergh also had long standing business and personal relationships) as a reliable source on this subject. You are, of course, free to continue to ignore them, but that does not mean I or anybody else has to. You should also feel free to cease prolonging this discussion which you started by unilaterally removing long standing material from the article which had been fully sourced and cited in conformity with WP policy and practice. Centpacrr (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to convey every bit of fiery prose you come across, Centpacrr. It is also not necessary to use so many quotes in order to get your preferred wording. The encyclopedia we are writing is more informative more quickly if we summarize the main points about the topic rather than slavishly follow the wording of the sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lindbergh's flight to Europe and the circumstances of his eventual return were highly charged and controversial events when they occurred, Binksternet, and your pablumizing the language and deleting references only serves to misrepresent the verified facts, their interrelationships, and their significance in understanding this controversial period of Lindbergh's life. Before unilaterally deleting material you would be well served to actually read the eight New York Times, one TIME magazine, and one LIFE magazine articles, and two later books on the Lindberghs which I have cited while creating this section.Centpacrr (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not need to use "highly charged" wording in the article. It does not matter how many times journalists wrote sharply about Lindbergh, this encyclopedia biography is not a newspaper or a magazine. We summarize, we present neutral facts, we relay events as calmly as possible. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please define exactly what you mean by "highly charged" wording. Pablumizing language that accurately relates what happened simply to avoid its being "highly charged" is, in fact, the opposite of being neutral in that it materially misrepresents what happened.

I gather from the above that you have apparently still not looked at any of the dozen sources I cited so I do not see on what basis you can claim to be in a position to judge whether or not these words are "highly charged" or they are just accurate, objective, and yes even "encyclopedic" reflections of happened. Anyone who knows anything at all about how Lindbergh was treated by the public and press during this period, for instance, would understand that using the term "exasperated" as to how he felt about it would not only not be a highly charged term but an understatement. (To understand that just read the extended quotation in the section of Lindbergh's own words on this to Deac Lyman.) The term "sailed furtively" is equally accurate and objective given the extreme lengths Lindbergh went to flee the country without detection by he and his family traveling under diplomatic passports and assumed names as the lone passengers on a freighter that left port at three in the morning after having arranged for Lyman to both withhold his story for a full day and then not disclosing any details of his means or time departure from his New York Times story in exchange for exclusivity.

The purpose of an encyclopedia biography is to provide an accurate reflection of the life and times of the subject without exaggerating them. But that does not mean that whitewashing them is acceptable either. Centpacrr (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I direct both of you to the disclaimer that appears on this page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

edit conflicts

This is now the third time this bug has hit me, and about the fifteenth time I have seen it in recent weeks -- the "edit conflict" system sometimes does not catch two edits within less than a minute of each other - likely due to multiple servers being used by Wikipedia, and when the "server lag" approaches the time difference between edits, the system can fail. I apologize for the accidental deletion of one comment , but assure everyone that it could happen to you <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Understand; explanation accepted. Centpacrr (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"by pure happenstance"

I suggest that "unexpectedly discovered by pure happenstance" is a quite unserendipitous wording, reeking of redundancy and repetition not to mention being quite iterative. The "by pure happenstance" was reinserted after I removed it, and I suggest others should opine thereon. Collect (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a simple "unexpectedly" would serve perfectly here, it gets the point across eloquently. I believe we should try to convey the available information with as little embellishment or decoration as possible. (I now see Cent's more ambitious changes and the result looks better to me than I had hoped.) I'd also like to restate my thanks to Centpacrr and Bzuk, without either of whom the article wouldn't nearly what it is right now. I apologize if any of my comments have been perceived as disrespectful; I only wanted to get this long-standing issue, though relatively minor, finally settled. Frankly I didn't know the issue had been around so long when I made the original change, and posted on the talk page only as an afterthought. Glad to see it resolved. Stihdjia (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about the efforts of Bzuk and myself on developing this article over the years. I still firmly believe that "serendipitously" is the best and correct term for the nature of the discovery of the Lindbergh baby's body for the reasons stated above but I just don't have the time to fight for this particular choice of words anymore so I'll let the article go in without it even though it provides only a truncatedly deficient accounting of the event. Centpacrr (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When I first removed it I was not well prepared to defend my actions, but the more I look into this the more certain I become that this particular word was not being used correctly. I don't claim to be an expert on Charles Lindbergh, Wikipedia editing, the English language, or anything else. I realize there are other things to worry about but that was just what I could identify as a problem. You've removed much more than I did originally. I don't want you to be uneasy with changes to the piece, but I and other more experienced editors had issue with the use of that one word. Stihdjia (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, know that I've never really had to defend my edits, I just change some minor problems once in a while. I hope I'm handling this conflict appropriately. Stihdjia (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Bourget-statue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bourget-statue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bourget-statue.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

File determined to be in the Publc Domain. Centpacrr (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Review comments

I took a brief look at the article after the recent peer review was closed. Here are a few comments for improvement - these are things that woulkd be a problem if this were up for WP:FAC or even WP:GAN.

• The lead is five paragraphs but WP:LEAD says the limit is four paragraphs.
• The lead does not summarize the article well - my rule of thumb is to include every section in the lead somehow, but the Munich Crisis, his marriage and children with Anne, his children with other women, and his death are not in the lead
• WP:MOSQUOTE says that all direct quotations need to have a reference (even if they are in the lead)
• To be free, most historic images need to have been published before 1923 or their source must be given clearly so that it can be determined that the image was published without a copyright notice or its copyright has expired. Images like File:CAL CAM2 DH4 Nov 4 1926.jpg were clearly taken after 1923, and lack the information as to sources that allow any sort of determination of copyright status.
• Or how is this image not still under copyright - published in 1927 at the earliest File:CharlesLindbergh-RaymondOrteig.jpg?
• The relevant policy for WP:FAIRUSE images is WP:NFCC, every point of which has to be met for an image to be used under fair use guidelines. I often ask myself three questions about fair use images: 1) Does the image increase the reader's understanding of the article's subject? 2) Is the image discussed in the article itself? 3) Is the image used merely for decorative purposes? NFCC also requires minimal use - all of which leads to me to ask: How do two separate Fair Use covers of "WE" increase the reader's understanding / meet minimal use? Where are they discussed in the article (as art) - I may have missed this.
• MOS says not to sandwich text between images - this article does so in several places.
• I read Mosely's biography of Lindbergh years ago (it is cited here) and read WE as a kid. This seems to me to under play Lindbergh's isolationism and at least the perception of him as an appeaser / possible Nazi sympathizer.
• The language in the lead at least seems needlessly convoluted - look at what the page Lindbergh says "Charles Lindbergh (1902–1974), first pilot to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic" then look at how it described here "As a 25-year-old U.S. Air Mail pilot Lindbergh emerged suddenly from virtual obscurity to instantaneous world fame as the result of his Orteig Prize-winning solo non-stop flight on May 20–21, 1927, made from Roosevelt Field[N 1] located in Garden City on New York's Long Island to Le Bourget Field in Paris, France, a distance of nearly 3,600 statute miles (5,800 km), in the single-seat, single-engine purpose built Ryan monoplane Spirit of St. Louis." The facts are all there, but it is so comvoluted that if you don't already know what Lindy did, you might miss it.
• Headers need to follow WP:HEAD. One thing is that all or part of the title should not be repeated in a header if at all possible - so "Lindbergh's flight to Paris" could hust be "Flight to Paris"
• What makes "charleslindbergh.com a reliable source? There are many books and articles on the man, only the highest quality sources should be used. See WP:RS
• In short, before you worry too much about the language, there is a lot of other stuff to fix here.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried...

...to improve the wording of a section of the article, not least by removing tedious (and awkward) repetition and redundancies, and correcting a sentence that rather hilariously states that the timing of his return from England was a Colonel in the USAAF and a presidential appointee to an aeronautics committee, but another editor's entrenched WP:ownership responses make it impossible to continue. Good luck to you all! Writegeist (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The new edits made were modified because they had caused the meaning of the section to become unclear and inconsistent with the language and details contained in the cited contemporary sources (eight New York Times stories and one each from TIME and LIFE magazines), as well as the later Lindbergh biographies and histories also cited. The fact that Lindbergh and his family only came back when they did (in April, 1939) was because "as a Colonel in the USAAF" he was required to do so when Gen. H.H. Arnold ordered him to report for active duty is also confirmed by both the cited April 15, 1939, NY Times story and by Chapter 23 of Joyce Milton's 1993 book, "Loss of Eden: A Biography of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh". This is therefore not an issue of WP:OWN, but of using language in the section that accurately reflects what the sources state as to the how and when these various events between December, 1935 and April, 1939 occurred, Lindbergh's intense desire to maintain secrecy regarding his actions, and how these factors were all interrelated. Centpacrr (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(1) The fact that Lindbergh's return was prompted by the call-up is not in dispute. Unfortunately you insist on constructing the sentence - "As a Colonel in the USAAF Reserves as well as a Presidentially appointed member of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the timing of Lindbergh's return had been primarily dictated by his call up to temporary active duty from General H. H. ("Hap") Arnold" - in such a way that it describes the timing of Lindbergh's return - i.e. not Lindbergh himself - as a Colonel in the USAAF and a member of an aeronautical committee. Yet you edit-war against corrective edits.

(2) Repeating, twice in consecutive paragraphs, the clause "To help maintain the strict secrecy Lindbergh insisted upon" is plain bad English. Yet you edit-war the second instance back into the article when it is replaced by alternative wording that retains the sense.

(3) Your harping on the "flight" aspect of the departure - "decision to clandestinely take his family into voluntary exile...'sailed furtively'...'flight to Europe'...the fleeing Lindberghs" - is UNDUE and POV. One characterization of the departure as a flight from the various pressures in America (which is indeed what it was) is appropriate to make the point. And having made the point, neutral wording (e.g. "departure") in your subsequent additions of reliably-sourced material would be sufficient.

(4) In your sentence To help maintain the secrecy Lindbergh insisted upon, Lyman's initial account intentionally withheld the identity of the ship as well as its time and port of departure, the word "intentionally" is clearly redundant. Yet when it is removed you persist in edit-warring it back in. Etc., etc.

Your responses to improvements - mine and those by other editors who have tried to to reason with you - are highly suggestive of WP:ownership, and borderline tendentious. Apparently the uncollaborative pattern is to continue unchanged. Hence my, um, flight from the article. Happy landings one and all! Writegeist (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue I have is that I see your approach as overly flyspecking the specificity of language here. My belief is that each sentence or paragraph should be able to stand alone and still adequately reflect the sense and relative importance of the facts and concepts they express even if removed from the context of the article as a whole. The language you object to above is all derived directly from the sources cited and has thus been included not as my POV, but to reflect as accurately as possible (and thus avoid pablumizing) the often complex interrelationships of the events related as well and the motivations of Lindbergh and others associated with them. I will, however, tighten up the language a bit more. Centpacrr (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But you are beating the reader over the head with it. OWN is the problem. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Ruhrfisch noted convoluted sentence structure in his peer review, and I have attempted to straighten out such convoluted sentences as I encounter them, but you keep reverting back. What is it about these examples that you prefer?

• Centpacrr revert:

  News of the Lindberghs' "flight to Europe" did not break until a full day later in an exclusive front-page story by New York Times aviation writer Lauren "Deac" Lyman, a longtime family friend and supporter, published in the paper's final Monday morning edition although Lyman intentionally withheld the identity of the ship as well as its time and port of departure from that initial account.

  • My rewrite, breaking it into two sentences:

    News of the Lindberghs' "flight to Europe" did not break until a full day after their departure in an exclusive front-page story by Lindbergh's longtime friend and supporter, The New York Times aviation writer Lauren "Deac" Lyman. To help maintain the secrecy Lindbergh insisted upon, Lyman's initial account intentionally withheld the identity of the ship as well as its time and port of departure.

• Centpacrr revert:

  The timing of family's return came primarily as the result of a personal request by General H. H. ("Hap") Arnold, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army Air Force in which Lindbergh was a Colonel in the Reserves, to him to accept a temporary call up to active duty in order to help evaluate that service's readiness for a potential war.

  • My rewrite, breaking it into two sentences:

    Lindbergh returned to the US to answer a call up to temporary duty issued by General H. H. "Hap" Arnold, chief of the United States Army Air Force (USAAF). Lindbergh, a colonel in the reserves, was to assess USAAF readiness and to consult with NACA.

Let's take the peer review seriously, in the spirit it was given. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Centpacrr, the edit summary you give here for yet another revert of yet another set of edits that improve the article states: Reverting gratuitous edits by a known LTA. By "known LTA" do you mean the anon 70.134.228.250? I can't find this anon in the LTA lists. Please provide a diff. If your edit summary refers to another user, please provide the relevant diff for clarification. Further, as you give "gratuitous edits by a known LTA" as the reason for the revert, please explain what you mean by "gratuitous edits" - they seem to me to be good faith edits that make small improvements to the article. Also please indicate the relevant policy that cites LTA history as a reason to revert another user's good faith edits. Writegeist (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no record of 70.134.228.250 at WP:LTA; in fact, the IP has made only one other edit, and that was May 2011. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this anonymous IP user (whose edit history only shows these two edits to the Lindbergh article and one edit to "Kripke semantics" made in May, 2011, quite possibly by another individual) is almost certainly the community banned LTA called "Techwriter2B" who has been disruptively editing WP as well as Wikistalking a large number of other WP editors over a period of seven years, and me personally off and on for almost three years. A very detailed summary of his/her disruptive activities (including a listing of more than 300 registered usernames and IP "Sockpuppets" addresses that this individual has used to disruptively edit Wikipedia) can be found here.

The evidence that convinces me of this is that individual is that the IP (70.134.228.250) resolves to the same ISP (SBC Internet Services) in SW Connecticut that this LTA has used to anonymously access and disruptively edit WP using literally hundreds of dynamically assigned IPs (via DHCP) since at least 2005. This LTA was finally "outed" and community banned from editing on WP in June, 2010. Since then, however, the LTA has continued to disruptively edit WP by registering numerous new Sockpuppet accounts all of which were quickly identified and blocked. He/she still occasionally surfaces in situations just like this one always using dynamically assigned IPs hosted this same SW CT based ISP (SBC Internet Services) whenever he/she sees that I or another of the editors he/she stalks becomes engaged in an extended editing discussion on an article which one of us have had a long history of editing such as Lindbergh article in this case. His/her intention in these cases is always to cause havoc although his/her well established pattern is to make small initial edits that always appear "reasonable" to the other editors in the existing discussion who are not familiar with the LTA. These are generally accompanied by edit summaries like "remove gratuitous verbiage" or the like which is exactly what he/she did in this case.

Among the edits he/she made in this instance were to remove the reference to the Lindbergh's son, Land, having been born while they were living in voluntary exile in England, removing that Hap Arnold had "personally" requested Lindbergh to return in 1939 (Arnold's personal intervention was a key element in his decision to return), and removing other such pieces of significant and well sourced information which materially change the meaning of the article and which is very typical of how he/she begins to disruptively edit an article of which his Wikistalking victim is a major contributor. I therefore referred to his/her edits here as "gratuitous" because in light of the above it is clear to me that they were not made in good faith.

I have seen (and therefore quickly recognize) all of these telltale patterns practiced by this LTA many times before, and they as well as the forensic evidence (the SW CT based ISP that the IP resolves to) convinces me that, in the absence of any strong contrary evidence, that these edits were made by the long established and community banned user "Techwriter2B" for the purpose of engaging in disruptive editing. Centpacrr (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

The anon's deletion of the other son may or may not have been accidental and your reinsertion is of course appropriate. However the additional deletion of numerous excess words (what the anon calls "gratuitous verbiage") - e.g. "full" x 2, "fully", "then" x 8, "carefully", "located", "With", "however", "first", "immediately", "that", "promptly", "entrained or trucked on" (which had been changed for the better to "shipped"), "on", "the nation and", "further", "the", "actively", "physical", "secretly", "strict", "and", "just", "nevertheless", "had" x 2, "finally", "again", "personal", "to him", "in order", "also", and "14 years earlier" - all improved the article's flow, and your revert undoes that good work. (Self-evidently these deletions were not instances of "removing...pieces of significant and well-sourced information which materially change the meaning of the article" as you claim.) Given this is not the first time you have undone improvements here by reverting to your own versions, I hope you can understand why this latest instance looks WP:ownish and tendentious. It certainly appears to imply an unwillingness to collaborate on the article - an impression that's only reinforced when you accuse another editor of edit warring (!), threaten them with blocks, and take the position that numerous other editors here are wrong and you alone are right.

Wikipedia is a collaborative venture. Writegeist (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let me briefly discuss both of these issues, First with regard to the community banned LTA ("Techwriter2B"), it has long been the practice and policy in dealing with edits made by this individual to immediately revert all changes that he/she makes as soon as discovered whether or not some of them may seem to be constructive. I could go through the many edits made one by one I suppose and keep some of them, but I (and many other editors) have been through this many times before with this LTA and find that is just playing into his/her hands. The LTA never has any personal interest in the articles to which he/she does this. His/her purpose is simply to goad whichever editor he/she is Wikistalking at the time. No matter how they appear, these edits were not made in good faith. (For further information on his/her disruptive practices see the extensive LTA page for this individual linked above).

• If you look at this article's edit history, you will find that I have been working on developing and expanding it for many years and have more contributions to it (800+) then any other editor over that time. I have long had a particular interest in this subject because of the large collection of "Lindberghiana" (postal history items, documents, artifacts, etc) I have built over the years many items from which now illustrate the article, and also because I am a pilot myself. I have also been a professional writer for more than 40 years (including seven published non-fiction books), and have been very careful over that time in my selection of all the words in this article that the LTA deleted. Within their context each was chosen specifically to give the rest the sentence in which each is used a very specific and intended meaning that in most cases would be materially changed if removed or altered. An example of that, for instance, is changing "entrained or trucked on" to "shipped" which does not mean the same thing. USPOD regulations were very specific as to by what methods the mails could legally be transported between cities because of the specific requirements of "custody and control" that had to be maintained. Therefore interrupted air mails could only be forwarded by either train or truck and no other methods thus "shipped" is an inaccurate term to use. Mails had to be either entrained or trucked only.

• As for the "edit warring" notice on Binksternet's talk page, I only put it there after he/she had first placed exactly the same notice on my talk page as you can see here. I did this for the purpose of engaging him/her in a discussion of why he or she had done so. In the course of that discussion I asked him/her multiple times if he had actually ever read the sources that he or she keeps saying can't be quoted or relied upon because their language is too "highly charged" and asked what he/she means by that. The only response I ever got was that in his/her view that cited sources "simply do not matter" and could therefore be ignored. I gave my reasons in considerable detail as to why the specific statements of fact in the sources do matter and how they support the use of the specific language I selected (which he/she rejects as being "uncalm" whatever that means) but still got no answer to my question.

• The last posting I made in that thread reads as follows:

"This has nothing whatever to do with "newspapermen and magazine writers", but accurately reflecting the events as they occurred and using perfectly ordinary and well understood English to do so. For some reason you seem to think terms like "exasperated" and "furtively" are somehow words that "repeatedly beat readers to extremes" and are somehow "non-scholarly" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but have still offered nothing whatever to support that view except to say that what contemporary sources might say "simply does not matter". So again I ask you have you read the sources?

"The twelve sources I cited (eight stories from The New York Times, one each from TIME and LIFE magazines, and two well researched and footnoted Lindbergh biographies and histories both published in 1993) are not filled with "excitable" or "highly charged" language, but are fair, objective, well sourced, and thorough reporting of the facts and events that occurred. (Lyman's coverage in the Times in fact won the 1936 Pulitzer Prize for the paper.) If these contemporary sources are not "good enough" for you (although they clearly are for most professional historians as they appear liberally in the footnotes of a great many scholarly books on the Lindberghs), then what, pray tell, is "good enough"? Centpacrr (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)"

• Instead of addressing my point and the question I had asked multiple times without receiving any answer, he/she simply deleted my posting so I have reposted the entire thread on my own talk page with my final comment and question included which you can see here. I am still therefore at a loss as to on what basis Binksternet feels that the my word choices "repeatedly beat readers to extremes" when he/she refuses to give me any specific example but instead only accuses me of disruptive editing and edit warring, and then threatens to have me blocked.

• Wikipedia is indeed meant to be a collaborative venture, and I have done my very best over the years to honor that and to assume good faith on the part of others. I have explained my reasons in great detail for selecting the words and language that I have used, and how that is fully supported by the dozen reliable sources I have relied on in the one section under discussion alone. My intention is always to reflect the facts and context of events as accurately as possible. For that reason I will always "defend" my writing when I see changes made that pablumize an entry and thereby make it misleading as to what and how events happened.

• The only response I have gotten when I have asked why and on what verifiable basis he/she disagrees with my view, however, is that sources "simply do not matter". With respect, I don't see how that constitutes "collaboration" on the part of Binksternet or in any way helps resolve the issues raised here. Centpacrr (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I'm a male. The collaborative spirit you have demonstrated at this article is nothing as you describe above. Rather than let your words be changed by others, words that do not fit the encyclopedia's purpose, you engage in edit warring. You are overprotective of any portion of the article that you have touched. Your involvement on this page has been challenged many times, especially your additions of minutiae. You have changed the nature of this article from one that is easy to read to one that is too busy with trivial details, with more difficult page load times because of all the images you uploaded. (Why are there two versions of the We book cover?) Only the most dedicated reader, with good internet access or great patience, will get to the bottom of the page to see your self-congratulatory stamps image. In that sense, you have driven away readers.

When I say it "simply does not matter", I am referring to your wish that the article contain many instances of the writing style of newspapermen, magazine article authors and novelists. Even the most highly praised Pulitzer-winning newspaper reporter does not write encyclopedias, but that is our job. You have uploaded an image containing words saying "The Lindberghs Fleeing from U.S. Land in England" but this is not enough for you. You want to put more such wording into the article, and you defend your wish by saying how many such instances occur in news, magazines and books. I say it "simply does not matter" because this is an encyclopedia.

Your sense of article ownership must come to a close, hopefully in a calmer manner than it did at The High and the Mighty (film) with all the talk page animosity and article text warring. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither your userpage nor username reveals your gender or much else about you and I don't like to assume anything about people that they do not voluntarily divulge so thanks for making that clear. We clearly have a difference in philosophy of what an "on line" encyclopedia can and should be as compared to a "physical" one which is much more limited because of the costs of printing, materials, distribution, etc.. I would concur with much of your stated philosophy if Wikipedia were a physical published encyclopedia. As an on line encyclopedia exists only in "cyberspace", however, and therefore is not subject to many of the limitations of a printed one I see it as a very different thing. I am an "inclusionist" and believe in taking full advantage of the freedom and "space" available "on line" by providing as much detail and context as possible for readers to select from.

Large WP articles such as this one are divided in many sections which visitors can read or skip over as is their want. People often come to WP (I know I do) looking for some specific fact or reference as opposed to read a whole article at once. One of the great benefits of the project is the wide interests, experience, and backgrounds of its contributors who are willing to share that with the community. I tend to do a great deal of editing and adding of information to a relatively small number of articles in which I think I have much to offer based those factors. Other editors contribute a little information to a wide variety of articles. There is room for both on the project.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to dismiss newspaper and magazine articles as reliable sources because they are not written in academic prose irrespective of the validity of information they contain. With respect, I find that to be an unfortunately shortsighted view. How you "know" that my contributions "contain many instances of the writing style of newspapermen, magazine article authors and novelists" without ever actually looking at the sources is beyond me and seems to really be just speculation on your part. (By the way "novelists" write fiction while the books cited here were heavily footnoted non-fiction biographies and histories written by professional historians.) The words I select are my own unless they are shown in quotes.

You are, sir, of course entitled to you views on how to build the project as I am on mine. I may even be in the minority on this (or you may be), but that does not mean that I am "wrong" and should thus be prohibited from editing based on my inclusionist philosophy. I am sorry that you seem to be taking these differences in editing philosophy all so personally. I also have no idea what you mean by "self-congratulatory stamps image" at the end of the article. I presume you are referring to the image of the two USPOD "Spirit of St. Louis" stamps issued in 1927 and 1977 with the May 20, 1977 First Day CDS honoring Lindbergh's flight to Paris. How you find this image somehow "self-congratulatory", however, is a mystery to me.

What you see as "ownership" I see as retaining carefully researched and sourced material and preventing it from being unilaterally deleted without good reason. I am perfectly willing to change or delete material if it can be shown (or I later find it myself) to be inaccurate or misleading. But I will also always "defend" the writings of myself and others against arbitrary deletion and/or pablumization when that is done purely as a matter of form at the expense of substance. Centpacrr (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside I see from your userpage that you are interested in the history of the San Francisco Bay area and thus you might find my illustrated history site on the Palace Hotel of interest as well as my family's 10,000+ webpage site on the history of the Central Pacific Railroad. Centpacrr (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You continue to assume that I have not read the sources, but what I have not done is answer your request, because I am insulted by the implication. It will not help your arguments to assume I have not read the sources.

You misunderstand my point about the wording used by reliable sources. I do not dismiss these reliable sources, not at all. I welcome them but I am unfettered by the writing style found in them. I wish to have an easy-to-read encyclopedia article which summarizes the most important points about Lindbergh's life. Toward that end, I think that you are choking it with convoluted sentences, too many quotes, too much fiery prose, and too many images. I think you are strangling what could be collegial interaction among topic-interested Wikipedia editors. I think you are the problem at this page. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said it is a difference in philosophy: I am an "inclusionist" for the reasons I stated above and you, I gather, are not. If you had indeed read the sources all you had to say is "yes" instead of "I have not answered your query because it simply does not matter" which leaves it up to me guess what you mean. (I still believe that it does matter however.) You still have not told me what you mean by "calm" language, or why or what in my writing style you find "repeatedly beats readers to extremes". However I gather you are not going to tell me that either although I don't know how you believe that helps promote collegial interaction among topic-interested Wikipedia editors. That being the case, I guess I'll just gracefully withdraw from making further contributions to this article and move on to other things. Centpacrr (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Boys, time for a breather, retreat to neutral corners and remember to assume WP:AGF. Bzuk (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

I promise I will never interfere with Centpacrr's proposed article Lindberghiana where minutia will be the whole topic. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Later Life" error...

In the "Later Life" section is this sentence particle: "On July 16, 1969, Lindbergh and the "Spirit of St. Louis" constructor, Tubal Claude Ryan..." T. Claude Ryan had nothing whatsoever to do with the design of "The Spirit of St. Louis." Ryan had sold the Ryan Aircraft Company in late 1926, as was long gone by the time Donald A. Hall designed the plane.

I didn't edit it because the entire structure would have made no sense, but it does need to be cleaned up.

..Joe

Joe Gerardi (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Negro problem

I removed the following sentence:

He had, however, a relatively positive attitude toward blacks (something that was scheduled to be fully revealed in an undelivered speech interrupted by the events that followed the attack on Pearl Harbor).

My edit summary: An undiscussed reference to "the Negro problem" is not evidence of "a positive attitude".

User:Bzuk reverted, saying: see reference given for the statement, and even if the speech wasn't given, the background was evident in his notes.

My response:

He vaguely says that there is "a Negro problem" which is in some way related to "freedom and democracy". You assume that the "problem" being referred to is lack of freedom and democracy for black people, but this is not obvious. For all we know, maybe he thought that the threat to freedom and democracy was government-enforced desegregation against the will of the majority. This was certainly a common opinion at the time. Either way, we certainly can't use such a vague reference, in a draft of a speech which was never even delivered, to make such a sweeping life-long generalization as "he had a relatively positive attitude towards black people". – Smyth\^talk 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Smyth here. Interpreting the sentence "Before we send our youth to die defending the freedom and democracy abroad, let us decide how these terms are to be applied to the Negro problem in our southern states." in the undelivered speech to mean that CAL had "a relatively positive attitude toward blacks" without any further evidence to support such an assumption seems to me to be stretch and not encyclopedically justified. Centpacrr (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

The article says

Anne Morrow Lindbergh (1906–2001) was the daughter of diplomat Dwight Morrow whom he met in Mexico City in December 1927, where her father was serving as the U.S. Ambassador.

Did Lindbergh meet Anne in Mexico City in December 1927, or her father, or both?

Also,

Before World War II, according to Lindbergh historian A. Scott Berg, Lindbergh characterized that:

the potentially gigantic power of America, guided by uninformed and impractical idealism, might crusade into Europe to destroy Hitler without realizing that Hitler’s destruction would lay Europe open to the rape, loot and barbarism of Soviet Russia’s forces, causing possibly the fatal wounding of western civilization.

Is this a quote from Lindbergh or from Berg? What does it mean that he "characterized that..."? Did Lindbergh say it, write it, think it? AxelBoldt (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC) hitler stole my nutella guys? HELPPPP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.24.146 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Flight time

This may be a small thing but if my math is correct and if the article is correct it says that Lindy started off on May 20th at 7:52 in the morning and landed at 10:22 on May 21st. I may not be a math genius but if I'm correct he flew for 38.5 hours not 33.5. Seems a little hard to believe he did this on a mere 450 gallons of fuel. Anyone care to respond?99.250.131.191 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your math is good, but your geography sucks. He crossed a few time zones during his flight. Rklawton (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a five hour time difference between New York and Paris and times given are local time. Lindbergh landed at 10:22PM Paris time which was 5:22PM New York time. The Wright J-5 Whirlwind engine that powered Lindbergh's plane had a fuel consumption rate of roughly 12.5 gal/hr at cruise (70% rated power) which was enough to fly for 36 hours without refueling. Centpacrr (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Year of his parent's separation

The year of his father's divorce differs between his biography (1909) and his father's biography (1919) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.126.250 (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lindbergh's parents divorced, and that was given as 1909 in his article, and 1919 in his father's article74.95.126.250 (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede

The lede to this article needs to be pared down. There's too much fuss-budgety detail that is horribly unreadable and is explained further in the article. It looks like someone has tried to remedy the situation before me (See "I have tried..." above). It also looks like the same editor has interfered with efforts to improve the article, again. Sigh. 70.235.84.144 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on the nature and specific language used in the comment above as well as that in a similar virtually simultaneous posting in the "New Contributors' Help Page", that it has been posted from an anonymous IP which resolves to an AT&T server located in SW Connecticut in or near Wallingford, CT, and the poster "appears" to have never edited WP before, it is obvious to met that this posting is specious and is instead yet another periodic reappearance of the well known community banned LTA Techwriter2B who has a long history of engaging in this type of disruptive editing which always starts the same way: appearing to be just a concerned good faith new editor trying to help the project. As does the IP 70.235.84.144 used by the poster above, virtually all of the almost 300 sockpuppet anonymous IPs that have been positively identified as having been used by this abusive user to edit WP since 2005 also resolve to AT&T servers in SW Connecticut located in or near Willingford.

This LTA has "wikistalked" a fairly large number of WP editors (including myself) over a period of eight years (beginning in 2005) often beginning each such new attack with exactly this type "complaint" about "bad writing" in an article in which the particular editor he/she is stalking has been a major long time contributor. (It should also be pointed out that this is not even the first time that this LTA has attempted to disrupt the Charles Lindbergh article which he/she attacked before several years ago.) This posting has all the telltale hallmarks of yet another of his/her periodic attacks which virtually always include a posting in the article's talk page as well as the opening of a discussion in a new user's help forum (or other similar forum) and thus should be ignored.

The fact that the LTA posted his/her "complaint" in the Lindbergh talk page in which he/she claims to have in the interim researched my history of contributions to the article ("It looks like someone has tried to remedy the situation before me (See "I have tried..." above). It also looks like the same editor has interfered with efforts to improve the article, again. Sigh.") just 14 minutes after I reverted his/her deletions in the lede -- and then also opened the "New Contributor's" thread just 16 minutes after that -- is one of the LTA's known telltale practices and clearly shows once again that this is a preplanned wikistalking attack aimed in advance at me specifically as the major contributor to the article over the years as he/she clearly already expected that his/her deletions would be reverted and that I would be the editor to do so.

Once called out on a new attempted wikistalking attack as is being done again here the same way that I and many other of his/her wikistalking victims have had to do many times before after earlier such attacks, this LTA's first response will be to pretend that he/she is completely innocent, as a "newbie" (which he/she most certainly isn't) knows nothing of WP procedures, and is only acting in good faith. These denials will be completely false and disingenuous. All of his/her telltale practices and behaviors are very well documented and spelled out in great detail in the extensive and long standing LTA file on "Techwriter2B" (which was first opened when this user was finally community banned almost three years ago) for anyone who doubts this to see for themselves. Centpacrr (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• UPDATE: See WP:ANI#Possible sockpuppet and Wikipedia:NHD#Bad_writing. 70.235.84.144 exposed as banned LTA Techwriter2B engaged in wikistalking and disruptive editing. Centpacrr (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Readability

I came to this page as a reader who knows next to nothing about Charles Lindbergh. (He's an aviator and flew in a plane called Spirit of St. Louis, and otherwise, . . . I just don't know anything. I think this is typical of my age group.) I was hoping to come to this article to learn more, but unfortunately, was not able to get further than the air mail section. I have read Wikipedia articles for all US Presidents, many authors, etc., with no problem. Mostly, I feel that the author(s) assumes readers know things that maybe they don't and references things that aren't explained until later in the article. Here's an example. The article states, "Although Lindbergh never returned to service as a regular U.S. Air Mail pilot, he used the immense fame that his exploits had brought him . . ." I'm thinking, "He had immense fame??? For what exploits?? Crashing his plane and recovering the mail??? Did I miss something?" Also, the writing is muddied up with details that should be cut. For example, "After just half an hour of dual time with a pilot who was visiting the field to pick up another surplus JN-4, . . . " could probably be OK without the details after "who was". If someone could go through the article to help all of this make sense for Lindbergh novices like me, it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.231.34 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)