Jump to content

Talk:Anne Morrow Lindbergh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Is this NPOV: She was the product of forward looking and powerful parents, that helped develop her writing and technical talents.?

I also think there is too much about Charles in here. -- Zoe

Certainly it's possible for parents to be powerful, isn't it? Same with forward looking, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't mean they were better than their contemporaries, it just means that they were looking forward, e.g. ahead of their time (which is an easy determination to make unless the subject is living in the present, in which case their forward-lookingness can only be determined later). Articles written about people are often written by those who have some kind of opinion about the person -- you can't know a great deal about the subject and not have an opinion (and if you don't, then the article will probably suck). Chadloder 03:25 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Too Respectful

[edit]

The article seems too respectful. It doesn't address the tensions in between her and her husband or her affair. The feminist reevaluation of their relationship by authors such as Hertog is unacknowledged. Unmentioned is her lifelong battle to protect and even to carve his image and why she felt there was a need for so much effort.

AML was a great woman but it would be nice if she was dealt with a tad more realistically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be interesting to look at a fuller scope of her writing...which of her books was it (it's not often reprinted or mentioned) that she wrote after Hitler have her husband a medal in Germany? It takes a very...iffy stance on the growing fascism of the 1930's. EDIT: Here's mention from PDS site: "Her most controversial published work was her 1940 book "The Wave of the Future," in which she appeared to share her husband's favorable opinions regarding Nazi Germany." SEE: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/anne.html Codenamemary (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a little more discussion (from NYTIMES article: "In less than 100 pages of murky and illogical prose she tells the world that we must let Fascism take its course and learn to live with it, if necessary. In other words, do what she did. Submit. The book's negative reception pained and humiliated her. She was considered as bad as her husband -- anti-Semitic, egomaniacal, a tool of the Nazis." SEE: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/magazine/the-lives-they-lived-anne-morrow-lindbergh-b-1906-the-heroine.html Codenamemary (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the Jews, most Americans were favorable towards the Hitler regime until 1939. What would be unusual, and therefore reportable, is if she thought poorly of it, unlike most Americans. This is unlikely, however.
If she wrote this after 1939, that would be another matter, since common Western thinking opposed the Nazis after the war started.Student7 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite verifiable external sources that support the proposition that "Except for the Jews, most Americans were favorable towards the Hitler regime until 1939." — Preceding unsigned comment added by J52Jarhead (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's just one: http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/us/pr/pr30.html See neutrality act which was not just anti-Italian, but appears to be anti-French and anti-English as well. Congress. I assume you don't need one to support the idea that Jews (and Roosevelt BTW) did not care for Hitler during this entire time.
Much documentation has gone into describing how Roosevelt wanted to "stop Hitler" but had to look for a politically opportune time to try since he realized that ambition had wide opposition.
This supports the "1939" part which you probably weren't questioning. http://www.danyankelovich.com/germanbehavior.html.
This one explores the attitude on American campuses towards Jews (and therefore toward Nazism) in the 1930s. http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=25589
While the article German American Bund seems to focus on post-1939, it was clearly allowed to operate openly and enjoyed a certain amount of success prior to 1939.
But if you have time, scan Life magazine during that period.. or other periodicals. That will give you a feel for the period. Many people thought the fascists had something that would relieve the depression and that was a good thing...at least for Europe if not here. Student7 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the book The Wave of the Future, myself...but my impressions from the Linbergh bio and other discussions is not that Anne posed that a fascist rule such as Hitler's was "unfortunate", as the artical now states. (I mean, it was during this period she wrote in a letter that she was beginning to feel Hitler was "a very great man, like an inspired religious leader -- and as such rather fanatical -- but not scheming, not selfish, not greedy for power.") The book seems to have put a blot on her history. If the book had been critical of those politics, the book would have been heralded throughout her lifetime, not buried. I guess I'll have to find a copy of it. (I just checked: it's $5 at amazon) Codenamemary (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her postwar statements essentially renounced the The Wave of the Future: A Confession of Faith, and the ideas behind it, stating she was "naive". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, she eventually renounced her book, AFTER others renounced it. I have been meaning to read that book for a while. Apparently it's philosophy is kind of skattered. Codenamemary (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and Hitler (stupidly) honoring his Axis obligation and declaring war on America, there appeared no way for America to enter the war with the support of most Americans! Both Roosevelt and Churchill kept looking for a way, but weren't finding anything sufficiently substantial. Her book is not particularly "visionary" as she may have wished/thought, but what must have entered everyone's head that was watching the situation. If the US had NOT entered the war, Britain would have been, at best, sidelined, at worst, been subjected to a fascist government. This was true right up until December 8, 1941, when we "lucked out," though it hardly seemed like a good deal to most Americans at the time, being reluctantly dragged once more into a "foreign" war. Student7 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

[edit]

The layout of the article is somewhat non-standard. When I tried to standardize it, it was reverted. For example, for no obvious reason, there are mixed "notes" in differing formats; one is "assigned" the other float, like most articles. There is confusion about the use of "bibliography" which the standard suggests avoiding for that reason. Therefore Anne's name is needlessly assigned to one subsection, though the standard says not to use the article name in subsections. And here, it is easy to avoid. WP:OWNERSHIP seems to be at stake here. Student7 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unusual article as the subject is a well known author whose work encompasses a lengthy bibliography of her own works. The use of bibliographical notation is commonplace as wiki authors establish notes to readers typically with citations, that are markedly different from the traditional "footnote" or "endnote". The reworking of the reference section was based on the Modern Language Association Style Guide and Harvard citation styles, a decision made when the original citations were not following any consistent format. There is a very obvious, oblique "note to the reader" established by previous editors, and there was no way to incorporate the note as a direct reference as it was more about the publisher's motivation for writing an article, and not as much about the subject of the article. When reviewing other long-standing work, as much care as possible should be directed to keeping the original "voice" and intent of the article. The confusion over which Lindbergh is being indicated, led the submitters (note plural) to state whether it is Anne or Charles that is being noted, and in the first instance as she is Anne Morrow, it was likely the use of her first name was to differentiate from other Morrows. This article was only recently (re-)discovered. Check the edit log as to submissions, and if you feel that your work is being deprecated for no reason, more discussion needs to take place. FWiW, since the use of similar terminology occurs, a more effusive note is being added to the section on referencing sources, but perhaps your "external bibliography" can work although there may be some reluctance to use a term that is in use in "External links", a "pointer" usually to an electronic or digital source. At least one item in the list of sources has not been used, but will likely be cited in due course. Bzuk (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Aviator" and "spouse"

[edit]

We're afraid of plain English here? Varlaam (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name confusion

[edit]

What proof do we have that she kept the middle name Spencer after marriage? Books say AML so maybe she substituted her maiden name as her new middle name. Or was her common name a pen name and not her legal one which no longer had Morrow in it? --Ranze (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Morrow Lindbergh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anne Morrow Lindbergh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suspect allegations

[edit]

In the sections "return to U.S." and "Later Years and death" are two allegations of affairs which she allegedly had, but cannot be proven. Wikipedia seems to suffer from anonymous authors who want to tear down famous people with accusations like this, based on what "someone" said. They should both be removedBrowntable (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Anne had an affair with St. Exupery is ridiculous. Anne, Charles and St. Exupery were together for a single weekend at the Lindbergh home in 1939, on Long Island as I remember, and there was absolutely no opportunity for any form of sex during that time, unless they had a threesome (which no one has claimed). She was indeed enamored of the Frenchman and would have been the first to admit it, but she barely touched him during the weekend, and never saw him again thereafter.173.50.167.230 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Names within the article

[edit]

What is the Wikipedia convention regarding names within an article about a married woman?

Several passages in this article are confusing because of the way names are used. For example, consider the following sentence:

Lindbergh's speeches and writings reflected the influence of Nazi views on race and religion.

Since the subject of the article is Anne Morrow Lindbergh, I expected that any sentence that uses the name Lindbergh by itself must concern Anne. (For example, in the article John Quincy Adams, whenever "Adams" is used by itself it refers to JQA, not his father John Adams.) But the entire paragraph is as follows:

Lindbergh elucidated his beliefs about race in a Reader's Digest article in 1939, stating: "We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races." Lindbergh's speeches and writings reflected the influence of Nazi views on race and religion. He wrote in his memoirs that all of the Germans he met thought the country would be better off without its Jews.

Nowhere in this paragraph is any first name given. But the masculine pronouns make it clear that Charles, not Anne, is the subject.

Is this according to Wikipedia style? I found it confusing. — Lawrence King (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main pic

[edit]

Why does the main picture show her as a 12-year old? There must be plenty of shots from her adult life. Valetude (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a poor choice for a subject not known for childhood accomplishments. I have changed it to a more representative image of Lindbergh as a young woman. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconciliation?

[edit]

A family reconciliation with the German family members later took place with Reeve Lindbergh being actively involved.

Does this mean that Anne was also involved? Needs re-phrasing. Valetude (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Anne was ill and died in 2001 and the DNA testing and revealing the adult children's paternity didn't happen until 2 years later, at least, no, Anne was not involved. The article stated earlier that, at least according to one person, Anne didn't know about Charles' double life. Personally, I hope she never found out. What a terrible thing, to find out your husband was lying to you and having multiple affairs for years and years. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne_Morrow_Lindbergh&oldid=1208185774"