Talk:Charles Lindbergh

Semi-protecting article?

What do we think about putting a semi-protection lock on this article? Just like Amelia Earhart, the Wright brothers, Neil Armstrong and others. There has been quite a bit of vandalism to it from IP addresses that are not attributed to a user name / account, so it may be a good idea, though I am not familiar with how the process works of going about deciding and then ultimately administering that action. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Figured I'd reignite this discussion given some recent contributions by non-verified user accounts, and would appreciate any input other regular users have on it. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That may be the cause of my getting a GOLF app every time I click on a link Ralph47 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

More pro-Nazi than the article states

1. **Visits to Nazi Germany**: Lindbergh visited Nazi Germany several times in the 1930s. He toured German aviation facilities, met with key military figures, and was impressed by the advancements in German aviation technology. He even accepted a medal from Hermann Göring in 1938 on behalf of the German Air Force, a decision that would later haunt his reputation.

2. **Admiration for German Efficiency**: In his writings and public comments, Lindbergh expressed admiration for the efficiency and organizational capabilities of the Nazi regime. While he criticized aspects of Nazi ideology, particularly anti-Semitism, his praise for other aspects of the regime led to accusations of sympathy.

3. **Isolationism and Non-Interventionism**: Lindbergh became a prominent spokesman for the America First Committee, which opposed U.S. intervention in the European conflict. While this stance was not unique to Lindbergh and was shared by many Americans at the time, his vocal opposition to aiding the Allies against Nazi Germany further contributed to the perception that he was pro-Nazi.

4. **Controversial Remarks on Race and Jews**: Lindbergh made several public statements that were perceived as anti-Semitic or racially insensitive. In a speech in Des Moines in 1941, he suggested that the "British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration" were pushing America into the war, a comment that many saw as echoing Nazi propaganda.

5. **Private Correspondence**: Some of Lindbergh's private letters and diary entries reveal a more nuanced view of the Nazi regime. He expressed concerns about the dangers of Bolshevism and seemed to view Germany as a bulwark against the spread of communism. Altonbr (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant descriptions of Nazi actions

What are all these descriptions of the Nazi atrocities doing in the Charles Lindbergh article? Yes, he was an anti-semite and had pro-Nazi leanings, but shoe-horning these paragraphs in here is unnecessary and makes the article read like a first attempt at a history essay. The article should be about Lindbergh and his history and not someone's opinion piece on the man.

All of these edits appear to be made by a single user. Zebidiah27 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed most of them. Zebidiah27 (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

1930 Wallace quote seems erroneous or incorrectly stated

The sentence "Wallace noted that it was difficult to find any social scientists among Lindbergh's contemporaries in the 1930s who found validity in racial explanations for human behavior." seems blatantly incorrect OR perhaps the intended word where it says "contemporaries" was meant to be "acquaintances" or such. Because:

1 - see Wikipedia's article on eugenics: "The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s." Not prior. 2 - the definition of contemporaries is such as (and specifically per Oxford Languages) "a person or thing living or existing at the same time as another" or "a person of roughly the same age as another"

So either the intention is that Wallace was speaking of Lindbergh's direct acquaintances and the sentence is correct aside from a word, or the sentence is, while correctly citing Wallace, generally incorrect and misleading as to the scientific embrace or lack thereof by the scientific community Zornqui (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)